Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 4573
Subject: Gurupie 24 '06 Pre-season Discussion

Posted by: Ref - Donor [539581218] Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 11:04

Last thread

Return invites are out. Please use this thread for preseason discussin

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 11:10

Action Figures' email won't go through. If anyone has an updated email for him please send it to us.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 12:41

Palmer
KJ
CJ
Smith
My Boys

Of course I am ready baby!!!

THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 12:42

PS Dan- you have an offer.

Perm Dude
ID: 4155928
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 12:57

Ref, try this one: greenelt@bellsouth.net

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 13:11

That failed as well.

Perm Dude
ID: 4155928
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 13:15

nerveclinic is his brother. I'll send him an email and let you know.

blackjackis21
ID: 14452823
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 13:41

in.

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 15:00

I'm in.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 15:06

Let me think about this.

1/2 a second pause.

OK, long enough.

I'm in.

Cliff

beastiemiked
ID: 18301915
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 15:09

I'm in as long as one of my RB's still has a starting job come week 1;)

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 15:17

If we had to declare keepers today, I would toss these guys back:
Boller, Kyle QB BAL
Rodgers, Aaron QB GB
Schaub, Matt QB ATL
Smith, Onterrio RB MIN
Johnson, Eric TE SF

All are available for a cup of coffee.

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 15:48

You can't get rid of the Whizzinator!! Noooo!

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 16:11

I could grind some beans.
Bag em.
Send em to ya.

Would that work :)

Cliff

Great One
ID: 523121411
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 18:28

I will send a box of Dunkin Donuts coffee..,

Perm Dude
ID: 4155928
Fri, Jun 02, 2006, 22:04

ref: try greenishness@comcast.net

Action Figure
ID: 287231610
Sat, Jun 03, 2006, 00:25

Yea that would be it.

Action Figure
ID: 287231610
Sat, Jun 03, 2006, 00:27

What did I miss?

deepsnapper
ID: 51521314
Sat, Jun 03, 2006, 15:31

I'm in

skinneej
Leader
ID: 040625911
Mon, Jun 05, 2006, 14:47

I'm in as well. Just checked the website and saw I had a trade offer. I guess the e-mail notifications have not been working. Guess I need to go see what I have missed since January.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 07, 2006, 13:10

As I stated in the invites, CBS has moved up the deadline for returning leagues' payments to save our league's data and get our discount. Also stated in that invite was the fact about notifications and league emails not working.

Here are the managers I've not heard back from. I will try to contact them all again one more time. In the meantime, if anyone knows about one of these names, let me know.

Dan
bmd
cc rider
toral
bj21

blackjackis21
ID: 434301113
Wed, Jun 07, 2006, 13:14

Ref - see post #7. ;)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 07, 2006, 13:17

Sorry bj21! OK bmd is in as well.

I was checking emails and forgot to look in this thread! I see bmd posted here as well after I asked him again via AIM. ugh.

OK, now we need to hear back from Toral, Dan and CC Rider. I should see Toral soon as he's in G20, but anyone ever see Dan or CCR?

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 07, 2006, 22:29

I heard from CCRider so now it's just Toral and Dan we're waiting on.

Great One
ID: 11139517
Thu, Jun 08, 2006, 00:00

Anyone with "extras" email me at work as I have an 2 3rd's and 2 4th round picks... and would like to move them for something, or package them and move up.

I need RBs more than anything obviously, but talent is talent and I could use it everywhere.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 17:08

Dan might be on vacation. Toral is around as he has voted in baseball. Not sure what is up but we still have some time for them to respond.

What are your feelings about Pick-ems this year?

I do have a FG proposal that would have passed last year but I let it go and didn't submit it for a vote. Wanted to wait one more year and get more stats so could support it more based on our league. We intentionally made Kickers valuable, but in doing so, we made them top heavy in not enough negatives for misses etc. I'll look it up and lay out the stats and the proposal. All last year Cards and I discussed it and modified it based on stats so we'd need to go through that again before I'd want to present it.

We will have a vote on Keepers as mentioned before. Seems a majority wants to go to 8 although there is a big minority that also want to go to 7 and keep it at 9 keepers.

I'd like to have all the votes well before keepers are due, obviously which is still a ways in the offing.

If anyone has any other proposed tweaks, the sooner you bring them to the table so they can be discussed, the better.

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 17:33

It's actually not that far away :)

Toral
ID: 541029611
Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 17:46

I'm in.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 19:01

Dan is in as well so everyone is back (GO did take over for rfs already).

THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Jun 09, 2006, 19:04

Repeat:
Dan you have an offer.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 21, 2006, 10:57

Here is a sample of what's new in this year's Fantasy Football Commissioner. The following is a result of customer feedback, so please continue to let us know what improvements and additions you would like to see.
You asked for it... you got it

Better Keeper Options - If you participate in a keeper league, SportsLine.com now offers improved keeper functionality that allows owners or the commissioner to select keepers using a checkbox on the lineup page. If keepers are tied to draft picks, you can use the customizable draft settings to select which round of the draft each player will be kept.
Completely Customize Your Draft Order - No longer will you be tied into doing a "snake" draft in the live draft room. Now you can completely customize the draft order anyway you want.
Trade Draft Picks - You can now allow owners in your league to trade draft picks. If you are in a keeper league, draft picks can be traded for players or additional draft picks. The Live Draft room will update automatically once a trade is conducted.
Free Agent Acquisition Budget - The new FAAB feature allows your league to use an auction process for add/drops. The commissioner will set a starting budget for the season, and each team will use that money to bid on free agent pickups. A great option for leagues looking to add a little strategy to the way add/drops is handled!
Sort Standings By Your League Tie-Breakers - If your league has specific tiebreak rules for standings, you can now apply those and your standings page will automatically be sorted by your league's specific tiebreakers.
Lineup Views - We now offer multiple ways to view your lineups on the lineup page. You'll never need to leave the lineup page to find important information in making decisions about your roster. Pre-season mode will give you projected stats, and three-year average options. Once in-season, you'll be able to see Year-to-Date and Last 3 games stats plus an additional Matchups view which will show relevant information regarding the upcoming matchups for each player on your roster.
Draft Room Improvements - Improvements made to the live draft room include the ability to search for a player by name, a positional lineup view of your roster, and better sorting options.
"Drag and Drop" Customization of League Home Page - Now you can simply drag and drop the components of your league homepage and put them in whatever order you want.
The Return of the "CommWire" - CommWire is a scrolling ticker on your league's homepage that provides a fun way for owners to view league trends, Game of the Week, Fantasy Statistics, league trends, commissioner blurbs, and much, much more!
Trade Analyzer - Rather than just looking at the stats, it takes into account the impact the trade will have on each lineup involved.
Easier Setup of "Flex" positions - Does your league use "flex" positions? Flex positions are positions on a fantasy roster that allow you to either use a Running Back OR a Wide Receiver or even a Tight End. With our new improved setup for the flex position, you can customize these settings anyway your league wants.
New Commissioner Permission Controls - Allow commissioners the ability to shut off certain features such as message board postings, news item posting, setting lineups, and transactions for specific owners within your league.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 21, 2006, 14:50

Then why won't they listen to me asking for 32 teams? How hard could it be to add capability for 2 more teams?!?!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 21, 2006, 15:28

LOL!

StL (our treasurer) just notified me that he was going to take care of the site fee and not ask for payment until a little later. He's also asked that we continue our discussion on keepers and wants to get with me on IM so we can remember what our thinking was on the FG minor tweaks we had come up with during the season last year. PROMIZE/BMD proposed 8 keepers and Twarpy has proposed 7 keepers.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jun 25, 2006, 12:02

Instead of messing with the points for FG (even had thoughts last year of getting less than 3 points for FGs under 30 yards) StL and I have come up with these numbers for FG misses.

Current rules:

FG - Field Goals 3 points
Plus .5 points for a FG of 35 to 39 Yds
Plus 1 point for a FG of 40 to 44 Yds
Plus 1.5 points for a FG of 45 to 49 Yds
Plus 2 points for a FG of 50 to 54 Yds
Plus 2.5 points for a FG of 55 to 57 Yds
Plus 3 points for a FG of 58 to 99 Yds

MFG - Missed Field Goal -2 points
Plus 1 point for a MFG of 35 to 40 Yds
Plus 2 points for a MFG of 41 to 99 Yds

MXP - Missed Extra Point -1 point

Since you can get 6 points for a FG and only lose 2 points for a chip shot FG, we've come up with this to help make Kickers more fair and make better FG kickers (accuracy) worth more than long kickers that miss a lot (esp close up).

Here were last year's NFL numbers on accuracy:

1-29 yds, 95%
30-39 yds 85%
40-49, 71%
50+ , 53%

We are adamently against losing points for LONG FG tries. So here is what we've come up for missed FG points:

45+ no penalty
42-44 -.5
39-41 -1
36-39 -1.5
33-35 -2
30-32 -2.5
29 or less -3

This way we have the half point values like we do the FGs made. Many leagues are -3 for all misses. We are really only changing things by a maximum of 1 point with this proposal but think it will make Kickers still powerful but fair. My original idea with the scoring system was to make Kickers worth something and I have now come to realize that they may be just a smidge imblanced. Again this shouldn't affect most Kickers based on the percentages posted.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 26, 2006, 19:07

Also promize and bmd proposed we go to 8 keepers and Twarpy proposed 7 so will ask them to talk aout why you should vote for their proposal.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Mon, Jun 26, 2006, 21:45

Feel like a broken record.

Have no problems at all with the FG changes.

Would really, really want to see the keepers stay at 9.

I've made all my decisions and trades over the last couple of years based on that number.

To now lower it throws all that effort out the window.

Cliff

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jun 26, 2006, 21:55

I'll be including a vote on keepers when I send out the payment info so let's keep the discussion going so people have thought it over carefully before receiving the ballot.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 26, 2006, 23:59

To further allay some fears, we will have 9 keepers this year no matter what. The vote will be for next year so you will have all year to prepare for it if it is changed or not.

If you think it should stay at 9, tell us why? How would one less guy help us? Will it just add a bunch of Kickers to the draft pool? What will 7 do, add a Kicker and a TE or a WR to the pool? Tell us why these proposals will help (or hurt) us. Currently we keep 9 of 14 players and draft 5. May seem high but we set it up like that originally so you could keep your starting lineup plus one. Maybe we were wrong and after four years it has been enough time to figure that out. But tell us why so we can discuss it.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jun 27, 2006, 00:08

FTR, in #33 it should be:

45+ no penalty
42-44 -.5
39-41 -1
36-38 -1.5
33-35 -2
30-32 -2.5
29 or less -3

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 11:23

The more I think about it, the less of a chance I would be voting for 7 for next year. That's a big step in a year. If you want to eventually go to 7, my guess is that we'd go to 8 for next year then you can propose the following year we go down to 7. But it's up to the league. Heck, I still need to see discussion to see whether I'd be voting for 8 or 9 as it is.

smallwhirled
ID: 43338280
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 11:23

9 to 7 is too harsh, IMO. If a bunch of people want 7, it would be better to go 9 to 8 to 7 I think.

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 11:47

I think we had pretty much ruled out going straight to 7. The last poll was a vote on whether people would support reducing keepers from 9 to 8. That poll showed 13-9 in favor of reduction. We would count the two non votes as no so that would be 13-11. We have had only 1 new owner come in since then. So even if the old owner voted yes, the new owner voted no, that would still be half the league in favor and half against.

Certainly we need more discussion on this and we will need to have a vote.

GL's post in #35 is certainly a compelling reason to vote against any reduction as I would hate a rule change to impact strategy. I felt exactly the same way last year. The fact that we wouldn't implement a reduction until next season though gives me time to adjust my keeper strategy based on 8 or even 7 if need be.

My feeling is that a reduction in keepers actually makes marginal players less important and impact players more important. For example, a few years ago I traded a big name RB for two lesser RBs figuring I could keep them both and their total production would surpass that of the single back while at the same time give me depth in case of injury and the abiltiy to fill in bye weeks. A reduction in keeper numbers and now I can only keep 1 of those backs, so I would be better off with the bigger name guy.

beastiemiked
ID: 18301915
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 12:02

With 9 keepers this league makes it next to impossible for rebuilding teams. Instead of the top teams filling out their teams in the supplemental draft they are drafting 1st and 2nd year talent since they already have all their starters + 1. Lowering the # of keepers to 8 gives the rebuilding teams a better chance to improve.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 13:12

So as I said before, would dropping just one player flood the market with extra kickers? If so would that really get the job done? With that line of thinking, it would be better than 9, but then would 7 really be better? Just throwing out observations. However, would that not be Kickers at all and really a youngster--say backup QB--you've stashed in hopes of him someday starting--i.e. Phillip Rivers?

Perm Dude
ID: 14515287
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 13:34

How many managers would have kickers as their 9th keeper? For that matter, how many kickers would be keepers anyway?

If you think that it would only be kickers getting kicked back than the proposal to go to 8 keepers isn't that big of a deal.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 13:44

With 9 keepers, it allowed me to hang onto my first round draft choice in Phillip Rivers until he finally got the starting job.

Also would allow me to keep my first round draft pick from last year in Eric Shelton until his status firms up.

Going to 8 or 7 makes it real tough to build.
Would add to trading and picking up of vets, but would personally like to see us stay at 9.

Cliff

blackjackis21
Dude
ID: 034837521
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 13:55

Right now, I think I'd vote to go to 8 next year. With 9 keepers this year, I still have to release a K. McCardell, dropping to 8, or 7, means dropping maybe Charlie Frye/Samkon Gado. That assumes keeping Jeff Reed and dumping R. Baronas. All of the above is subject to change, of course. Just fyi on some "bubble" players.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 14:05

I went ahead and put a poll up on G24 site to get an idea of where the league would vote if they had to today. Obviously it isn't official.

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 14:12

I've heard the arguement before about the rebuilding teams not being able to rebuild. This is something that I am very interested in. What would be a good way to quantify that?

My general feeling is that a rebuilding team gets a top draft pick which likely lands them a future star, possibly as early as that same year. A high finishing team will never have a top pick unless through a trade, therefore, they can only remain on top while their studs are healthy and performing. At some point though I would expect a reversal to occur where the rebuilding teams rise and the top teams fall, since they don't have the top caliber players to replace their declining studs.

Maybe that doesn't happen, but my thinking is that it should. Then again I have had pretty good talent to work with so far, so maybe I am blinded. Think of a team that has Larry Johnson for instance. How soon until they fill in around him and become a long term contender vs a team that has Edge etc. Look how fast Marshall Faulk fell off the map. One day elite RB, next day backup.

I am open at looking for ways to quantify this trend. If indeed the rebuilding teams just can't get it done, then I am all in favor of some kind of change. I do know that some of the top teams in the league have fallen quickly. Last year the Steelers finished in last place after winning it all the year before. The first year best record team was the Seahawks and they fell the next 2 years. The Ravens and Jaguars have also steadily fallen since success in year 1. On the low end, the Chiefs have steadily climbed since year 1 and the Broncos really improved since then too. Both the Texans and Vikings made huge strides since year 2.

Right now I'm looking at power rankings of teams over the 4 years as that includes record, points, and something called breakdown that I'm not sure about, to get a power ranking. This includes the playoffs as well, but it is much harder to sort out the rankings otherwise, so it is a good first step I think.

Open to other ways of looking at it though.

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 14:27

Here are the power rankings for each year. Each team is color coded so you can visually track them from year to year. This is not order of finish and it does include the playoffs. Order is from highest power ranking to lowest power ranking.

2002	2003	2004	2005
Team	Team	Team	Team
Indianapolis Colts	Indianapolis Colts	Chicago Bears	San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks	Dallas Cowboys	Pittsburgh Steelers	Indianapolis Colts
Baltimore Ravens	St Louis Rams	Denver Broncos	Dallas Cowboys
Dallas Cowboys	Atlanta Falcons	NY Giants	Arizona Cardinals
Pittsburgh Steelers	NY Giants	Dallas Cowboys	Minnesota Vikings
Oakland Raiders	San Francisco 49ers	Indianapolis Colts	Oakland Raiders
Jacksonville Jaguars	Cincinnati Bengals	Green Bay Packers	Kansas City Chiefs
NY Giants	Pittsburgh Steelers	Oakland Raiders	Chicago Bears
Washington Redskins	Denver Broncos	San Francisco 49ers	St Louis Rams
Chicago Bears	Arizona Cardinals	Cincinnati Bengals	Houston Texans
St Louis Rams	Seattle Seahawks	St Louis Rams	Denver Broncos
Arizona Cardinals	Baltimore Ravens	Arizona Cardinals	Atlanta Falcons
San Francisco 49ers	Chicago Bears	Buffalo Bills	New Orleans Saints
Cincinnati Bengals	Kansas City Chiefs	Atlanta Falcons	Seattle Seahawks
Atlanta Falcons	Cleveland Browns	San Diego Chargers	San Diego Chargers
Minnesota Vikings	Philadelphia Eagles	Houston Texans	Philadelphia Eagles
Houston Texans	Jacksonville Jaguars	Minnesota Vikings	NY Giants
San Diego Chargers	Oakland Raiders	Baltimore Ravens	Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills	San Diego Chargers	Seattle Seahawks	Cincinnati Bengals
Green Bay Packers	Buffalo Bills	New Orleans Saints	Green Bay Packers
Cleveland Browns	Minnesota Vikings	Philadelphia Eagles	Jacksonville Jaguars
Tampa Bay Bucs	Green Bay Packers	Kansas City Chiefs	Cleveland Browns
Denver Broncos	Tampa Bay Bucs	Jacksonville Jaguars	Buffalo Bills
Kansas City Chiefs	Houston Texans	Cleveland Browns	Pittsburgh Steelers

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 15:36

Yea for 2005! ;-)

Perm Dude
ID: 14515287
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 15:55

I think the Steelers would disagree!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 17:00

Also there are typically only impact players in the top few picks of the draft. Again, I am not sure how I am going to vote on this but want to do what's best for the league. As long as we have a full year ahead of time, I have plenty of time to figure out what I'm going to do--even if the league wants to cut it to 7. So I can live with any of the choices, 7, 8 or 9. Just want to be swayed so I can make peace with my own mind! ;)

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 17:23

I am in favor of letting the keepers stay at 9.
Why:
1) It gives you extra space to let talent develop (ex: Rivers, Chris Brown 2 yrs ago, etc)
2) It rewards teams that have built top teams...
3)...makes it tough for crappy teams to rebuild

Bad teams get a top draft pick and have plenty of ways at their disposal to turn their team around. Look who is saying this. After drafting A-train my #1 overall pick in our draft (Deuce went 1 before)...it has been an up hill climb.

*I made trades like dealing a declining Taylor for Barlow (who I thought would be good).
*I drafted Palmer
*I drafted Chris Brown in the 5th round
*Was able to turn Barlow and Brown into Deuce
*Was able to use those high draft picks if I didn't like them to package...Coles + #5 last yr turned into CJ

etc etc I know look for my team to push CT's for tops in our division if Palmer is healthy. At worst a WC. You can make your team over with 9 keepers and I see no reason to change it. If it had to be changed though...8 obviously...not 7.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 17:30

Dan-you have another offer.

beastiemiked
ID: 18301915
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 17:58

1) It gives you extra space to let talent develop (ex: Rivers, Chris Brown 2 yrs ago, etc)

It gives top teams rooms to let talent develop. The bottom dwelling teams will already be keeping these high ceiling players.

2) It rewards teams that have built top teams...

Well if an owner had 9 solid keepers he could conceivably pawn off Mr. 8 or Mr. 9 for draft picks or upgrades. Losing a keeper for 2007 isn't going to dismantle any top teams.

3)...makes it tough for crappy teams to rebuild.

This is the reason it should be lowered. Look at GO's team. He's screwed for the next 2 years and possibly longer.

People shouldn't be voting on what's best for their team, they should vote on what's best for the league. The competitive imbalance in this league is pretty severe. Having a pick in the top 10 helps out but it's not a guarantee to get a stud.

Great One
ID: 11139517
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 18:00

Yeah! :)

Great One
ID: 11139517
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 18:01

Why am I cheering that my team sucks?! :)

I guess its appropriate that I don't have the Steelers name anymore and have my beloved Jets.

Can I draft Brady Quinn THIS year? lol...

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 18:11

bmd-
I am not voting what is better for my team by any means. I have been anti reducing the keepers ever since it came up. Long before I had depth of Wilford, White, K-Rob, CJ, Smith, KJ, etc...Bad teams deserve to be bad (no matter if it is their fault or inherited) and need to have good managing to get better.

THK

Doug
ID: 441251914
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 18:25

I like 9 because I think of this league as more of a dynasty league than a keeper league. Typically in a dynasty league, you keep your entire roster, not just the active roster (at least in my fantasy experience).

Now, our league is a bit different because of the number of teams... you don't have as much of an ability to hoard young talent, etc. to build for the future. As such, I think it makes sense that we don't keep our entire roster.

On the other hand, a top team in a dynasty league should (IMHO) reap the benefits of their hard work (and good fortune) and be able to keep their full active roster. In reality, with bye weeks and injuries, you need that 1 extra keeper to really "keep" a full active roster from year to year.

So that's just my .02, I'm not going to flip out or quit or anything if we drop it to 8, but I do like 9 and fact that it's allowed me to keep and develop talent from year to year (which hopefully will pay off!)

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 19:03

I've been looking things over a bit and it does seem that a top 10 draft pick can make a difference, but it is no guarantee. Some of the best players wind up drafted later as backups and then earn a starting role.

Looking at the initial draft, the #1 overall pick was Marshall Faulk made by the Texans. A lot of the top picks are no longer worthy.

In the 2003 supplemental draft you really don't find players that have done much until you get down to picks 9-12 with Ferguson, L. Johnson, T. Jones, and Jake Delhomme.

The 2004 and 2005 drafts are a different story where you find lots of good picks that still have potential within the first 10 picks or so. Some of these players will just start to pay their dividend this year and the years to come.

I'm not sure a simple reduction in keepers is going to have a huge impact in rebuilding until you make a substantial cut in the numbers. One option to explore would be limiting the number of players at a position that you could keep. Conceivably we could say 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1Flex, 1D, 1TE, 1K. This might open up the player pool more, although most people only kept 1QB and 2RBs to begin with. Many more kept 3WR and a Flex position might not really change who is available anyway.

I know last year I kept 3RBs (Barlow and Brown were 2 of them) and also kept two DSTs. Going from 9 to 8 keepers would have had me send the ATL D back to the pool, whereas the positional limits I laid out would have done the same thing.

If there were 8 keepers and positional limits, say 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1DST, then I would have had to throw back either Barlow or Brown. Other teams would have to throw back a 3rd WR or a QB. To me what would happen is the rebuilding teams aren't going to want to take Barlow, so they will take the same player they always would have anyway at the top, but come time for my pick, I will actually be able to upgrade to a better WR.

To me it's kind of a fine line between helping a rebuilding team become competitive versus ensuring a rebuilding team becomes competitive. A top draft pick that doesn't pan out can be a big blow. Maybe there needs to be more solid choices along with the speculative choices. Of course I can point to last year where rebuilding teams all passed on Mike Anderson and let him fall to me at #15. He wasn't what most teams would consider building around and will indeed be a backup this year.

I think what we are saying in terms of helping a rebuilding team is that there should be more impact players available in the draft so that a rebuilding team has a better chance of getting 2 players that can help vs 1 good player + a speculative player for a top team?

I'm just kind of thinking out loud here and just hoping for discussion.

Right now I'm thinking that 8 keepers and positional limits like I said before might be what it takes.

Comments?

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 19:54

I think I would dislike positional limits worse than I would going from 9 to 8.

Positional limits would have made me choose between McNair and Rivers.

How can I build for the future if the number of players I can keep for a particular position are limited.

Now that said, there is some good to be said about positional limits, but I just don't think it is the right answer.

By creating a league of the size of this one, there were some inherent issues that would be caused.

We have to take the good with the bad.

If you take STL post # 49 and look at the Power Rankings, you'll see that things are probably in better shape than most owners realize.

Remembering that Power Rankings give you a view of how teams would have done each week against every other team in the league in addition to the one that they played.

The easiest way to look at this is probably by breaking the standings into Top Third(TT), Middle Third(MT), Bottom Third(BT).

Using that thought process, we come up with the following data.
2002 2003 2004 2005
Indianapolis Colts TT TT TT TT
Seattle Seahawks TT MT BT MT
Baltimore Ravens TT MT BT BT
Dallas Cowboys TT TT TT TT
Pittsburgh Steelers TT TT TT BT
Oakland Raiders TT BT TT TT
Jacksonville Jaguars TT BT BT BT
New York Giants TT TT TT BT
Washington / Philly MT MT BT MT
Chicago Bears MT MT TT TT
St. Louis Rams MT TT MT MT
Arizona Cardinals MT MT MT TT
San Francisco 49ers MT TT MT TT
Cincinnati Bengals MT TT MT BT
Atlanta Falcons MT TT MT MT
Minnesota Vikings MT BT BT TT
Houston Texans BT BT MT MT
San Diego Chargers BT BT MT MT
Buffalo Bills BT BT MT BT
Green Bay Packers BT BT TT BT
Cleveland Browns BT MT BT BT
Tampa Bay / NewOrleans BT BT BT MT
Denver Broncos BT MT TT MT
Kansas City Chiefs BT MT BT TT

Only two teams have been in the Top Third all four years.
Not a single team has been in the Middle Third or Bottom Third all four years.

Overall, I would say we have a pretty good balance.
Based on that, I would really think the answer is to leave well enough alone and stay at 9 keepers.

Formatting sucks, but you can see the outcome.

Cliff

beastiemiked
ID: 36428317
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 20:48

I don't think looking at past performance of teams is really going to show the competitive balance of this league. I doubt there were any teams completely rebuilding before season 3. My guess is a few teams packed it in and were looking towards the future but none where the talent on the team was severely limited.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 21:24

My first thought is against positional limits. What about that young QB I drafted? Do I have to choose between him and Joe stud QB? Am I forced to trade him to someone who has no QB for minimal return? What if I'd rather drop my K, TE or that 3rd WR?

I agree with bmd that we need to do what's best for the league. I also agree with thk, that teams taht have worked hard to build their teams up should reap the rewards. I've had to reinvent myself a few times. Winning our one and done championship isn't easy. bmd came from nowhere and look what he did.

I am not sure going down to 8 is going to make a major impact. But like I said, I can't imagine voting for positional limits as of now. Just because 9 is how we've always done it and it's worked, doesn't mean that is best for the league. But maybe it is. I dunno.

rfs and I came up with all the original rules, but I am always ready to tweak a rule that helps the league grow.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 21:34

NO POSITIONAL LIMITS NO MATTER!!!

Perm Dude
ID: 14515287
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 22:09

The higher you get up in the standings, the more difficult keeper decisions will be. What I'm hearing is that some of the top teams want a higher number of keepers to make it easier to make those decisions.

While I've not had the high level of success here that I would have liked, I've certainly had to make tough keeper decisions in the past in leagues I've won or placed near the top, so I'm not unmindful of the difficulty of those choices. (Really, I'm not). But that is the trade-off for success.

Great One
ID: 11139517
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 22:37

And if you have some really tough choices to make you should be emailing me and my extra draft picks at work... :)

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jun 28, 2006, 23:05

I am going to have a decision between K-Rob, White or Wilford. You can contact me if you have interest anyone...I'll let you make my decision for me for the right offer.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 01, 2006, 17:32

AF, just another reminder to change your email on the site. My yahoo email has been down so I've changed mine...not sure if it will be permanent or not, but I'm leaning toward it at this point.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 12:58

Count me as one more against positional limits for our keepers... let people diversify their strategies. I don't really like dropping to 8 keepers, but like Goatlocker said, I dislike the notion of positional limits even moreso.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 13:06

Just looking at the poll results thus far with 15 out of 24 potential votes (I assume)...

10 for FG tweak
5 against FG tweak

7 for nine keepers
6 for eight keepers
2 for seven keepers

If you haven't voiced an opinion on these matters yet, it'd be nice to round out the votes, especially since the keeper question is so evenly split (especially if you assume the "sevens" would prefer eight over nine).

Great One
ID: 523121411
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 20:37

When will the draft lottery occur again?

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 21:01

Doesn't matter really. My guess is sometime after we vote on rule proposals and get our league dues paid. We usually turn to that after the baseball prospect draft which is next week.

GO, for this league we have 16 in the lottery and we do the ping pong balls to select the top 4 and the do inverse for the rest of the first round.

Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 21:09

when are we paying? I haven't missed my invoice, have I?

I want to trade.

Anyone want to take Chris Perry, TJ Houshmanzadeh or Chris Henry off my hands? I have too many Bengals

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 23:14

Cards paid for the site already but wanted to wait to send out the invoices. ;)

I'd like to hear more discussion on the keepers so I can firmly decide how I'm going to vote. Anyone else have any other points they can make?

Doug, thanks for that update on our site. Looks like 2 or 3 more have voted since then on the site. It is my belief that it will be either 9 or go no lower than 8 based on people's comments and votes on the site. But who knows what might happen depending on some good points. I think the people who want 7 need to really make their points.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 23:57

Whether you go to 8 or 7, it is really easy to see who will be dropped and added to the draft list each and every year.

Kickers and Defenses.

So, based on that, what gain is there from changing the number of keepers.

The only way you are going to see really helpful players returned to the draft will be to drop the keepers to 3.

Just my $.02

Am I up to a buck yet

Cliff

Perm Dude
ID: 2962868
Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 00:12

I'm not sure who would be keeping kickers, but if they aren't worth very much than having a system where they are thrown back isn't a bad thing. As for defense, in our scoring system they are among the best "players" out there. Having some of them tossed back would help churn the league.

Peter N.
ID: 9659616
Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 01:02

PD, I take offense to that since I'm keeping Vanderjagt!! ;-)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 09, 2006, 11:54

Looking at our informal poll on the site, 3/4 of our league has voted (18 of 24). Seems only 2 support 7 Keepers for next year while 8 support Keeping it at 9 and 8 support dropping it to 8. If you assume that given the choice, the two voting for 7 would vote for 8 then 10 of 18 support lowering the keepers to 8. It takes 13 and the poll is not final by any means.

However, I just don't think there is enough support to go down to 7. In order to include proposals on the ballot, I generally ask for stated support and with only two people voting for it, I'm inclined to leave it off the ballot.

So then we have just two questions. Some have voted against the FG Missed tweak on the informal poll, though I've heard no issues against it. 2/3 have voted for it (12 of 18). Obviously the tweak is for consistency and fairness and don't see how anyone can see it hurting their team even if they're keeping a Kicker.

Next, we have a huge divide on the number of Keepers, 9 or 8. Even though 8 Keepers may have a slight margin 10-8 with the 7 Keepers added in, it could still go either way. To be honest, I don't care how this vote turns out. I'll strategize either way. But the argument that has struck a chord with me the most is, if that extra Keeper you'd drop is just going to be a Kicker, what's the difference if we go down to 8? So you want to keep that young QB or WR who might make it big this year (or the next), then you have to drop a K or a 3rd WR or that RB who is 4th on the depth chart or even a TE. Who cares? I mean honestly, can't you draft someone (if not that same guy) back in the draft? Maybe you can get someone better. Whether it is true or not, if the perception is that the best teams are getting an advantage by Keeping 9 and going down to 8 really makes no difference (or very little) wouldn't it be best if we did it for peace of mind?

Anyhow, that's what I'm asking myself right now. I might have helped create these rules but as I've always said, these leagues are a different animal. My hope is that they will evolve and continually get better and if that means tweaking or changing a rule to do so--then so be it. I am not offended whatsoever.

I thought I would originally vote for 9 or 7. I didn't think 8 would do much for us. Then the more I thought about it, the less I wanted 7. But for the reason I laid out, I voted for 8 keepers in our informal poll. Obviously, I am not dead set on that as of now, but that's the way I'm leaning. If it's best for the league as a whole then I'm all for it and I'll have a whole year to strategize accordingly. If I can come up with a better reason to vote for 9 then I will. Call it hedging, but, again, I'm fine with whatever we decide.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Jul 09, 2006, 12:01

Btw, defenses can REALLY hurt you. Sure, Pd has the Bucs D who has always been big for him, but I've thrown both of my defenses back before. As we did with Kickers, we made defenses strong on the positive while not as hurtful on the negative side. Though Defenses are MUCH more fair then we were with Ks. I think this tweak we added for missed FGs will help big time. Not sure any of us want -40 or whatever we could get by having a D that must be put on the field in every week but the bye week! ;) You could always pick up a K that isn't playing just to satisfy the requirements of the league to have a K in your lineup, but every D plays every week (sans be week) and you must have one in your lineup.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sun, Jul 09, 2006, 14:23

I don't think the best teams are getting the advantage by keeping 9.

I'm one of those teams that has been in a rebuilding mode since we started this league and very much feel that keeping 9 is to my advantage.

I'm not going to rehash what I have posted over and over.

Cliff

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 12:04

RB Julius Jones will try to stay healthy and be the Dallas Cowboys' starter this season. RB Marion Barber will "at least serve as the third-down back" according to Nick Eatman of DallasCowboys.com.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

This is just an opinion from Mr. Eatman but it's one we can get on board with. Parcells just seems to have reservations about Julius Jones. And he seems to really like Barber. And when Parcells has reservations about Julius Jones, you should have reservations about Julius Jones.
-----
All news coming out of Dallas is bad news for JJ and good for Barber. Barber is on the block now so offer away. DAN---I am talking to you too! ;-)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 17:54

Last Year's Finishes used to determine draft order:

2005 Playoff Results:
1st: 49ers
2nd: Texans
3rd: Cowboys
4th: Raiders
5th: Colts
6th: Vikings
7th: Chiefs
8th: Rams

Lottery Eligible:
9. Cardinals, 7-6, 1142.4
10. Falcons, 7-6, 929.5
11. Saints, 7-6, 901.0
12. Giants, 7-6, 805.3
13. Bears, 6-7, 918.1
14. Broncos, 6-7, 820.8
15. Chargers, 6-7, 787.3
16. Bengals, 6-7, 782.3
17. Eagles, 5-8, 787.8
18. Jaguars, 5-8, 766.6
19. Packers, 4-9, 808.0
20. Ravens, 4-9, 747.4
21. Bills, 4-9, 710.8
22. Seahawks, 3-10, 804.9
23. Browns, 3-10, 714.1
24. Steelers (Now Jets), 3-10, 648.2

We will go inverse order except for the first four picks of the first round where we will use a lottery from the non-playoff teams to determine the top four selections.

Promize
ID: 141018197
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 07:09

Damn, give me a first pick :) Come on luck

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 09:56

I hope the PD's Brown's get the #1 pick. Ever since he missed the draft and Tampa Bay was his primary weapon I have felt bad. GO BROWNS!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 12:34

Don't feel too bad, his TB D has been one of the best "player" overall in points scored over the first few years. I've said all along that I would have tried to trade them for a RB and a WR, but I don't think most understand how good that D has been so they might not have wanted to trade anyhow. He definitely needs some support, but he has drafted high a lot, so who knows this could be his year.

Perm Dude
ID: 566181910
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 12:58

Yeah, I actually got very lucky with the TB pick. It was the others that came after that which were somewhat questionable!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 13:00

Agreed. And let's be honest with ourselves. Even if you wanted the TB D in the worst way, you could have had them for sure in the 2nd and perhaps even the 3rd round.

Perm Dude
ID: 566181910
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 13:05

Yeah--I remember looking at my notes after the draft, being really pissed because I didn't plan to take a D until the third round at the earliest! Funny how things work out.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 13:10

But at least your first round pick is still there. Many of our first rounders have long since departed.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 14:20

Here is the original draft:

1 Houston Texans Faulk, Marshall (RB STL)
2 Arizona Cardinals Alexander, Shaun (RB SEA)
3 Baltimore Ravens Green, Ahman (RB GB)
4 Pittsburgh Steelers Warner, Kurt (QB STL)
5 Chicago Bears James, Edgerrin (RB IND)
6 Green Bay Packers Martin, Curtis (RB NYJ)
7 Atlanta Falcons Tomlinson, LaDainian (RB SD)
8 Cincinnati Bengals Dillon, Corey (RB CIN)
9 Dallas Cowboys Moss, Randy (WR MIN)
10 Cleveland Browns Buccaneers (DT TB)
11 Jacksonville Jaguars Manning, Peyton (QB IND)
12 Indianapolis Colts Holmes, Priest (RB KC)
13 NY Giants Culpepper, Daunte (QB MIN)
14 Oakland Raiders Garcia, Jeff (QB SF)
15 St Louis Rams McNabb, Donovan (QB PHI)
16 Kansas City Chiefs Davis, Stephen (RB WAS)
17 Seattle Seahawks Williams, Ricky (RB MIA)
18 San Diego Chargers Owens, Terrell (WR SF)
19 Buffalo Bills Favre, Brett (QB GB)
20 San Francisco 49ers McAllister, Deuce (RB NO)
21 Minnesota Vikings Thomas, Anthony (RB CHI)
22 Denver Broncos Brooks, Aaron (QB NO)
23 Tampa Bay Bucs Vick, Michael (QB ATL)
24 Washington Redskins George, Eddie (RB TEN)
25 Washington Redskins Harrison, Marvin (WR IND)
26 Tampa Bay Bucs Smith, Rod (WR DEN)
27 Denver Broncos Bennett, Michael (RB MIN)
28 Minnesota Vikings Taylor, Fred (RB JAC)
29 San Francisco 49ers Plummer, Jake (QB ARI)
30 Buffalo Bills Boston, David (WR ARI)
31 San Diego Chargers Bettis, Jerome (RB PIT)
32 Seattle Seahawks Gannon, Rich (QB OAK)
33 Kansas City Chiefs McNair, Steve (QB TEN)
34 St Louis Rams Lewis, Jamal (RB BAL)
35 Oakland Raiders Johnson, Keyshawn (WR TB)
36 NY Giants Holt, Torry (WR STL)
37 Indianapolis Colts Barber, Tiki (RB NYG)
38 Jacksonville Jaguars Bruce, Isaac (WR STL)
39 Cleveland Browns Dunn, Warrick (RB ATL)
40 Dallas Cowboys Bledsoe, Drew (QB BUF)
41 Cincinnati Bengals Stewart, Kordell (QB PIT)
42 Atlanta Falcons Hearst, Garrison (RB SF)
43 Green Bay Packers Griese, Brian (QB DEN)
44 Chicago Bears Horn, Joe (WR NO)
45 Pittsburgh Steelers Staley, Duce (RB PHI)
46 Baltimore Ravens Smith, Antowain (RB NE)
47 Arizona Cardinals Moulds, Eric (WR BUF)
48 Houston Texans Brown, Tim (WR OAK)
49 Houston Texans Johnson, Kevin (WR CLE)
50 Arizona Cardinals Brees, Drew (QB SD)
51 Baltimore Ravens Garner, Charlie (RB OAK)
52 Pittsburgh Steelers Chambers, Chris (WR MIA)
53 Chicago Bears Green, Trent (QB KC)
54 Green Bay Packers Gonzalez, Tony (TE KC)
55 Atlanta Falcons Pittman, Michael (RB TB)
56 Cincinnati Bengals Glenn, Terry (WR GB)
57 Dallas Cowboys Smith, Jimmy (WR JAC)
58 Cleveland Browns Stewart, James (RB DET)
59 Jacksonville Jaguars Green, William (RB CLE)
60 Indianapolis Colts Burress, Plaxico (WR PIT)
61 NY Giants Henry, Travis (RB BUF)
62 Oakland Raiders Jones, Thomas (RB ARI)
63 St Louis Rams Portis, Clinton (RB DEN)
64 Kansas City Chiefs Gary, Olandis (RB DEN)
65 Seattle Seahawks McCaffrey, Ed (WR DEN)
66 San Diego Chargers Collins, Kerry (QB NYG)
67 Buffalo Bills Smith, Emmitt (RB DAL)
68 San Francisco 49ers Shockey, Jeremy (TE NYG)
69 Minnesota Vikings Coles, Laveranues (WR NYJ)
70 Denver Broncos Brown, Troy (WR NE)
71 Tampa Bay Bucs Thrash, James (WR PHI)
72 Washington Redskins Mason, Derrick (WR TEN)
73 Washington Redskins Couch, Tim (QB CLE)
74 Tampa Bay Bucs Smith, Lamar (RB CAR)
75 Denver Broncos Jackson, Darrell (WR SEA)
76 Minnesota Vikings Foster, DeShaun (RB CAR)
77 San Francisco 49ers Galloway, Joey (WR DAL)
78 Buffalo Bills Rice, Jerry (WR OAK)
79 San Diego Chargers Allen, James (RB HOU)
80 Seattle Seahawks Pollard, Marcus (TE IND)
81 Kansas City Chiefs Hambrick, Troy (RB DAL)
82 St Louis Rams Morton, Johnnie (WR KC)
83 Oakland Raiders Ismail, Qadry (WR IND)
84 NY Giants Alstott, Mike (RB TB)
85 Indianapolis Colts Toomer, Amani (WR NYG)
86 Jacksonville Jaguars Price, Peerless (WR BUF)
87 Cleveland Browns Wheatley, Tyrone (RB OAK)
88 Dallas Cowboys Booker, Marty (WR CHI)
89 Cincinnati Bengals Gardner, Rod (WR WAS)
90 Atlanta Falcons Titans (DT TEN)
91 Green Bay Packers Duckett, T.J. (RB ATL)
92 Chicago Bears Steelers (DT PIT)
93 Pittsburgh Steelers Dolphins (DT MIA)
94 Baltimore Ravens Sharpe, Shannon (TE DEN)
95 Arizona Cardinals Freeman, Antonio (WR PHI)
96 Houston Texans Brady, Tom (QB NE)
97 Houston Texans Rams (DT STL)
98 Arizona Cardinals Barlow, Kevan (RB SF)
99 Baltimore Ravens Brunell, Mark (QB JAC)
100 Pittsburgh Steelers Muhammad, Muhsin (WR CAR)
101 Chicago Bears McCardell, Keenan (WR TB)
102 Green Bay Packers Robinson, Marcus (WR CHI)
103 Atlanta Falcons Jackson, Willie (WR ATL)
104 Cincinnati Bengals Wells, Jonathan (RB HOU)
105 Dallas Cowboys Vanderjagt, Mike (K IND)
106 Cleveland Browns Schroeder, Bill (WR DET)
107 Jacksonville Jaguars Warrick, Peter (WR CIN)
108 Indianapolis Colts Bears (DT CHI)
109 NY Giants Dyson, Kevin (WR TEN)
110 Oakland Raiders Eagles (DT PHI)
111 St Louis Rams Anderson, Mike (RB DEN)
112 Kansas City Chiefs Green, Jacquez (WR WAS)
113 Seattle Seahawks Ward, Hines (WR PIT)
114 San Diego Chargers Cowboys (DT DAL)
115 Buffalo Bills Packers (DT GB)
116 San Francisco 49ers Redskins (DT WAS)
117 Minnesota Vikings Carr, David (QB HOU)
118 Denver Broncos Patriots (DT NE)
119 Tampa Bay Bucs Raiders (DT OAK)
120 Washington Redskins Saints (DT NO)
121 Washington Redskins Alexander, Derrick (WR MIN)
122 Tampa Bay Bucs Jones, Freddie (TE ARI)
123 Denver Broncos Wilkins, Jeff (K STL)
124 Minnesota Vikings Chargers (DT SD)
125 San Francisco 49ers Mare, Olindo (K MIA)
126 Buffalo Bills Franks, Bubba (TE GB)
127 San Diego Chargers Walls, Wesley (TE CAR)
128 Seattle Seahawks Jets (DT NYJ)
129 Kansas City Chiefs Browns (DT CLE)
130 St Louis Rams Conway, Curtis (WR SD)
131 Oakland Raiders Sloan, David (TE NO)
132 NY Giants Chamberlain, Byron (TE MIN)
133 Indianapolis Colts Fiedler, Jay (QB MIA)
134 Jacksonville Jaguars 49ers (DT SF)
135 Cleveland Browns Finneran, Brian (WR ATL)
136 Dallas Cowboys Mack, Stacey (RB JAC)
137 Cincinnati Bengals Ravens (DT BAL)
138 Atlanta Falcons Gramatica, Martin (K TB)
139 Green Bay Packers Chrebet, Wayne (WR NYJ)
140 Chicago Bears Robinson, Koren (WR SEA)
141 Pittsburgh Steelers Bradford, Corey (WR HOU)
142 Baltimore Ravens Heap, Todd (TE BAL)
143 Arizona Cardinals Stallworth, Donte' (WR NO)
144 Houston Texans Longwell, Ryan (K GB)
145 Houston Texans Hakim, Az-Zahir (WR DET)
146 Arizona Cardinals Giants (DT NYG)
147 Baltimore Ravens Wycheck, Frank (TE TEN)
148 Pittsburgh Steelers Lewis, Chad (TE PHI)
149 Chicago Bears Watters, Ricky (RB SEA)
150 Green Bay Packers Pathon, Jerome (WR NO)
151 Atlanta Falcons Westbrook, Michael (WR CIN)
152 Cincinnati Bengals Richardson, Tony (RB KC)
153 Dallas Cowboys Levens, Dorsey (RB PHI)
154 Cleveland Browns Elam, Jason (K DEN)
155 Jacksonville Jaguars McMahon, Mike (QB DET)
156 Indianapolis Colts Hilliard, Ike (WR NYG)
157 NY Giants Broncos (DT DEN)
158 Oakland Raiders Zereoue, Amos (RB PIT)
159 St Louis Rams White, Dez (WR CHI)
160 Kansas City Chiefs Carter, Quincy (QB DAL)
161 Seattle Seahawks Akers, David (K PHI)
162 San Diego Chargers Dayne, Ron (RB NYG)
163 Buffalo Bills Bryant, Antonio (WR DAL)
164 San Francisco 49ers Jenkins, MarTay (WR ARI)
165 Minnesota Vikings Terrell, David (WR CHI)
166 Denver Broncos Edwards, Robert (RB MIA)
167 Tampa Bay Bucs Canidate, Trung (RB STL)
168 Washington Redskins Johnson, Eric (TE SF)
169 Washington Redskins White, Jamel (RB CLE)
170 Tampa Bay Bucs Gadsden, Oronde (WR MIA)
171 Denver Broncos Holcombe, Robert (RB TEN)
172 Minnesota Vikings Weinke, Chris (QB CAR)
173 San Francisco 49ers Dilfer, Trent (QB SEA)
174 Buffalo Bills Janikowski, Sebastian (K OAK)
175 San Diego Chargers Conway, Brett (K WAS)
176 Seattle Seahawks Testaverde, Vinny (QB NYJ)
177 Kansas City Chiefs Scott, Darnay (WR JAC)
178 St Louis Rams Driver, Donald (WR GB)
179 Oakland Raiders Carney, John (K NO)
180 NY Giants Taylor, Travis (WR BAL)
181 Indianapolis Colts Chandler, Jeff (K SF)
182 Jacksonville Jaguars Riemersma, Jay (TE BUF)
183 Cleveland Browns Proehl, Ricky (WR STL)
184 Dallas Cowboys Johnson, Brad (QB TB)
185 Cincinnati Bengals Moss, Santana (WR NYJ)
186 Atlanta Falcons Graham, Jeff (WR ATL)
187 Green Bay Packers El, Antwaan Randle (WR PIT)
188 Chicago Bears Becht, Anthony (TE NYJ)
189 Pittsburgh Steelers Miller, Jim (QB CHI)
190 Baltimore Ravens Pinkston, Todd (WR PHI)
191 Arizona Cardinals Hasselbeck, Matt (QB SEA)
192 Houston Texans Allen, Terry (RB NO)
193 Houston Texans Frerotte, Gus (QB CIN)
194 Arizona Cardinals Conwell, Ernie (TE STL)
195 Baltimore Ravens Matthews, Shane (QB WAS)
196 Pittsburgh Steelers Vinatieri, Adam (K NE)
197 Chicago Bears Brady, Kyle (TE JAC)
198 Green Bay Packers Gaffney, Jabar (WR HOU)
199 Atlanta Falcons Chiefs (DT KC)
200 Cincinnati Bengals Crumpler, Alge (TE ATL)
201 Dallas Cowboys McMichael, Randy (TE MIA)
202 Cleveland Browns Jaguars (DT JAC)
203 Jacksonville Jaguars Edinger, Paul (K CHI)
204 Indianapolis Colts Panthers (DT CAR)
205 NY Giants Falcons (DT ATL)
206 Oakland Raiders Centers, Larry (RB BUF)
207 St Louis Rams Sanders, Frank (WR ARI)
208 Kansas City Chiefs Alexander, Stephen (TE SD)
209 Seattle Seahawks Stokes, J.J. (WR SF)
210 San Diego Chargers Hayes, Donald (WR NE)
211 Buffalo Bills Jordan, LaMont (RB NYJ)
212 San Francisco 49ers Edwards, Troy (WR PIT)
213 Minnesota Vikings Bengals (DT CIN)
214 Denver Broncos Bryson, Shawn (RB BUF)
215 Tampa Bay Bucs Peterson, Todd (K PIT)
216 Washington Redskins Harrington, Joey (QB DET)
217 Washington Redskins Ferguson, Robert (WR GB)
218 Tampa Bay Bucs Lelie, Ashley (WR DEN)
219 Denver Broncos Jefferson, Shawn (WR ATL)
220 Minnesota Vikings Nedney, Joe (K TEN)
221 San Francisco 49ers Smith, Steve (WR CAR)
222 Buffalo Bills Colts (DT IND)
223 San Diego Chargers Bates, D'Wayne (WR MIN)
224 Seattle Seahawks Jackson, James (RB CLE)
225 Kansas City Chiefs Dwight, Tim (WR SD)
226 St Louis Rams Johnson, Rob (QB TB)
227 Oakland Raiders Crowell, Germane (WR DET)
228 NY Giants Redman, Chris (QB BAL)
229 Indianapolis Colts Clark, Desmond (TE DEN)
230 Jacksonville Jaguars Mathis, Terance (WR PIT)
231 Cleveland Browns Lions (DT DET)
232 Dallas Cowboys Seahawks (DT SEA)
233 Cincinnati Bengals Feely, Jay (K ATL)
234 Atlanta Falcons Stover, Matt (K BAL)
235 Green Bay Packers Hanson, Jason (K DET)
236 Chicago Bears Brien, Doug (K MIN)
237 Pittsburgh Steelers Lewis, Jermaine (WR HOU)
238 Baltimore Ravens Anderson, Richie (RB NYJ)
239 Arizona Cardinals Morgan, Quincy (WR CLE)
240 Houston Texans Anderson, Jamal (RB ATL)
241 Houston Texans Bruener, Mark (TE PIT)
242 Arizona Cardinals Taylor, Chester (RB BAL)
243 Baltimore Ravens Texans (DT HOU)
244 Pittsburgh Steelers Bulger, Marc (QB STL)
245 Chicago Bears Fuamatu-Ma'afala, Chris (RB PIT)
246 Green Bay Packers Hollis, Mike (K BUF)
247 Atlanta Falcons Seder, Tim (K DAL)
248 Cincinnati Bengals Stokley, Brandon (WR BAL)
249 Dallas Cowboys Wayne, Reggie (WR IND)
250 Cleveland Browns Hall, John (K NYJ)
251 Jacksonville Jaguars Huntley, Richard (RB BUF)
252 Indianapolis Colts Ricks, Mikhael (TE DET)
253 NY Giants Dawson, Phil (K CLE)
254 Oakland Raiders Cardinals (DT ARI)
255 St Louis Rams Bills (DT BUF)
256 Kansas City Chiefs Wilkins, Terrence (WR STL)
257 Seattle Seahawks Vikings (DT MIN)
258 San Diego Chargers Byrd, Isaac (WR CAR)
259 Buffalo Bills Andersen, Morten (K KC)
260 San Francisco 49ers Gordon, Lamar (RB STL)
261 Minnesota Vikings Branch, Deion (WR NE)
262 Denver Broncos Dilger, Ken (TE TB)
263 Tampa Bay Bucs Christie, Steve (K SD)
264 Washington Redskins Rhodes, Dominic (RB IND)
265 Washington Redskins Ismail, Raghib (WR DAL)
266 Tampa Bay Bucs Chandler, Chris (QB CHI)
267 Denver Broncos Shaw, Bobby (WR JAC)
268 Minnesota Vikings Holmes, Jaret (K CAR)
269 San Francisco 49ers Crockett, Zack (RB OAK)
270 Buffalo Bills Fletcher, Terrell (RB SD)
271 San Diego Chargers Stevens, Jerramy (TE SEA)
272 Seattle Seahawks Kitna, Jon (QB CIN)
273 Kansas City Chiefs Rambo, Ken-Yon (WR DAL)
274 St Louis Rams Cortez, Jose (K SF)
275 Oakland Raiders Graham, Daniel (TE NE)
276 NY Giants Williams, Roland (TE OAK)
277 Indianapolis Colts Minor, Travis (RB MIA)
278 Jacksonville Jaguars Christian, Bob (RB ATL)
279 Cleveland Browns Epstein, Hayden (K JAC)
280 Dallas Cowboys Patten, David (WR NE)
281 Cincinnati Bengals Wuerffel, Danny (QB WAS)
282 Atlanta Falcons Flutie, Doug (QB SD)
283 Green Bay Packers Blake, Jeff (QB BAL)
284 Chicago Bears Pennington, Chad (QB NYJ)
285 Pittsburgh Steelers Shipp, Marcel (RB ARI)
286 Baltimore Ravens Dawkins, Sean (WR MIN)
287 Arizona Cardinals Brown, Kris (K HOU)
288 Houston Texans Dudley, Rickey (TE CLE)
289 Houston Texans Mitchell, Freddie (WR PHI)
290 Arizona Cardinals Martin, Jamie (QB STL)
291 Baltimore Ravens McKnight, James (WR MIA)
292 Pittsburgh Steelers Stith, Shyrone (RB IND)
293 Chicago Bears Hicks, Skip (RB TEN)
294 Green Bay Packers Faulk, Kevin (RB NE)
295 Atlanta Falcons Kirby, Terry (RB OAK)
296 Cincinnati Bengals Minnis, Snoop (WR KC)
297 Dallas Cowboys Redmond, J.R. (RB NE)
298 Cleveland Browns Beuerlein, Steve (QB DEN)
299 Jacksonville Jaguars Streets, Tai (WR SF)
300 Indianapolis Colts Jeffers, Patrick (WR CAR)
301 NY Giants Lindell, Rian (K SEA)
302 Oakland Raiders Gramatica, Bill (K ARI)
303 St Louis Rams Brewer, Sean (TE CIN)
304 Kansas City Chiefs Kasay, John (K CAR)
305 Seattle Seahawks Jurevicius, Joe (WR TB)
306 San Diego Chargers Kennison, Eddie (WR KC)
307 Buffalo Bills Carswell, Dwayne (TE DEN)
308 San Francisco 49ers Goings, Nick (RB CAR)
309 Minnesota Vikings Pochman, Owen (K NYG)
310 Denver Broncos Moore, Dave (TE BUF)
311 Tampa Bay Bucs Schlesinger, Cory (RB DET)
312 Washington Redskins Williams, Boo (TE NO)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 14:33

It appears that the schedule for this year is the same as last year save a day for the calendar. So my guess is that this year will generall by on the same timeline as last year for the Keepers and Draft start date. However, last year we opened the draft room 5 days before the official start of the draft which is not good. Since there is a time limit I'd rather start the official draft earlier then get in part of a round where some people pick without a clock and take forever.

So that means that we'd still have the keepers due somewhere in the 3rd week of August and start the draft that same week or the following Monday. We could also make keepers due on like the 21st or so and start the draft on say the 23rd. Opening night is Sept 7th and we'd like ot have two full sets of waivers to go through by then if possible.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 17:30

I will never get over this until my name is engraved as Champion:

20 San Francisco 49ers McAllister, Deuce (RB NO)
21 Minnesota Vikings Thomas, Anthony (RB CHI)

Before the draft started I thought I could and would get Deuce at #21 (after A-train). A-train fell to me and I was pumped. I know their are worse stories out there but argh. I ended up trading A-train for peanuts. Then I finally got Deuce on my team and he tears his ACL...lol

THK

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 17:32

Here is my best pick of the orginal draft:
261 Minnesota Vikings Branch, Deion (WR NE)

I have 0 players from my original draft as well, but I am sure I am not the only one.

It is my supplemental drafts and trades that have led me to being one of the contenders this year. Which again points to leaving the keepers the same.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 18:26

While we now only have 15 of 24 managers still with s from the beginning with rfs leaving, all six managers in the NFC North are OGs.

NFC North Division
Arizona Cardinals: Craig Turley, 02-current
Chicago Bears: CCRider, 02-current
Green Bay Packers: skinneej, 02-current
Minnesota Vikings: TaRhEElKiD 02-current
NY Giants: Twarpy, 02-current
Seattle Seahawks: Promize, 02-current

Complete List

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 24, 2006, 11:39

OK last chance to talk about any of the current proposals or bring up any new ones. My guess is that we will have our vote and lottery draw next week. We will then finalize the dates of keepers and the draft and cards and I will start working on the schedule.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Mon, Jul 24, 2006, 12:23

I am always up for making this a PPR league now that I have 2 top WRs! ;-)

Let's set the dates as soon as possible and get moving. I am worried when I go out to Oklahoma for the end of summer I will have spotty access.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 24, 2006, 13:33

I gave you some idea about the dates in #91.

THK
ID: 2510332316
Mon, Jul 24, 2006, 13:46

Oh good...I'll be gone from Oklahoma by then! ;-)

100

Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Fri, Jul 28, 2006, 12:11

I would like to make a proposal lowering the keepers in this league. I think the head to head format and the managers we have in this league make it great, but I think the amount of keepers lowers the activity in this league by there being the least amount of trades and pickups during the year comparative to the other two leagues.

For those in the baseball league you see about 2 trades a week on average, and a good 25-30 pickups (non-bye week related) a week too, based upon what I think is a perfect number of keepers in that league in relation to the amount of teams in MLB.

Looking at Baseball
30 Teams in MLB (14 AL, 16 NL – so 254 starting hitters, 150 starting pitchers, and 30 closers) Giving a grand total of 434 starting players.
We keep 9 players for 270 total, for a total of 62.2% of starting players
We have 15 starting positions (I would argue you need more to fill max IP through rotating starters, but will keep this simple) so we keep 60% of our starting rosters.

Looking at Basketball
30 Teams in the NBA (150 starters)
We keep 6 players – for 120 total for a total of 80% of the staring players
We have 8 starting positions (You really need a 9th player to meet the games required but again will keep it simple) so we keep 62.5% of our starting rosters.

Looking at Football
32 Teams in the NFL (QB, RB, 2 WR, TE, K, Defense) starters on each team fantasy wise) so 224 starting players.
We keep 9 players – for a total of 216 for a total of 96.4% of the starting players
We have 8 starting positions (You need a 9th player essentially rotating for bye weeks, but again we wont count that) so we keep 112.5% of our starting rosters.

Personally, and for those in all 3 leagues, I find I can be more active in the other leagues, and actually change my team, rebuild, be aggressive with add/drops and generally this contributes to a more enjoyable experience. I understand that this was the first G20/G24 league and was setup as a replica league, and I still love the format of the league but every year I wish I could be more active but feel restrained.

Only the first round of the draft can you actually get a starter, or a rookie that will do something and even that tends to be limited to the first 10 draft picks. I find myself deciding which kicker (often times 20th or so on most cheat sheets) or 2nd defense, and 3rd string/2nd string RB to keep, all of which in other leagues would not be even close to considering to be kept.

For those in basketball many people feel that the introduction of the Charlotte Bobcats, made the league more enjoyable purely because there was actually a player pool you could pick from. We realized that we had too many keepers in that league after year 1 and reduced it to 6, from 8 and I don’t think anyone would argue that has been in that league since its infancy that reducing keepers was a bad move. In fact I will be bringing up the reduction of one less keeper in my mind in the next few months to make it more in line with baseball and make that draft mean something.

I’ve talked about this with length with bmd who I know is currently away, but I would love to see ideally the keepers to go down to around 6 players to make this league more active. I know this isn’t realistic over one year so I would like to see discussion on what others think. I also do not want to change the rule for this year unless there is unanimous support.

Before making an official proposal of reducing it by 0/1/2/3 keepers for the 2007 season I would like to hear opinions first on reducing keepers and what everyone thinks of the current system.

The reduction in keepers will in my opinion...

-Make draft picks more valuable (Trading a 2nd, 3rd rounder will actually have value to other teams, and will increase trading, as well as promote rebuilding)
-Less keepers will mean all that we are losing is the non-keeper kicker, defense, backup RB/WR.
-People will be more inclined to drop players that they feel are not keepers (right now almost every player on most our teams COULD become a keeper, and I find that a real reason to why I do not drop some players during the year.
-It will help rebuilding teams, and new managers who have adopted a team based on another managers principles make it easier to rebuild under their image. As has happened with GO, Stlcards, Trip, and Species with great ease in our baseball league.

Sorry for such a long post, I would be really interested in what everyone else thinks.

101

Doug
ID: 196442711
Fri, Jul 28, 2006, 12:47

Personally I prefer the current set of keepers.

> -It will help rebuilding teams...

While I think reducing it may help some rebuilding teams, it may hurt other rebuilding teams. If I trade my couple of starter-caliber players for a suite of young players who may need another year or two or three to develop, I will be less able to keep that full stable around.

> -People will be more inclined to drop players that they feel are not keepers...

I don't get this argument. The talent in the FA pool (during the season) won't be any better or worse. Towards the end of the season I pretty much know who my players are, and there's rarely if ever anyone available as an FA who I would want to pick up as a potential starter for the playoffs, etc. So I often pick up one or two who are good upside candidates to see if they might be keeper-worthy by next August. Being able to keep less players wouldn't change this strategy for me... I'd still want to give myself as many options as possible to find a gem.

> Less keepers will mean all that we are losing is the non-keeper kicker, defense, backup RB/WR.

One thing I've focused on in building my team the last couple years is trying to have a solid TE, K, DEF while everyone else is focusing on RB, etc. I feel I've achieved that. So to say that "all we are losing" is the kicker, defense, etc. is difficult... because for some teams that's no big deal compared to others who have operated with the current ruleset in mind.

> -Make draft picks more valuable...

Hey, at least we agree on this one! ;-)

All that said, even though I would definitely prefer to stay with the current system, it seems to me like there are enough people who feel we need a change that I don't want to stand in the way of it, for the good of the league (I think Ref said something akin to this earlier).

I do feel very strongly that we should limit it to a reduction of 1 keeper for 2007. If the league really wants to reduce 2 keepers, it should be spread over 3 years IMHO. I'd like to see us go through 2007 season and assess the changes before deciding for an additional reduction (vote in 2008 preseason, which would take effect 2009).

102

THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Jul 28, 2006, 13:04

The problem is- when we voted the results were inconclusive or a change would have already been made. I think there is just a small contingent voicing their opinion time after time. If the vote showed conclusive results we would have already dropped keepers to 8.

I have voiced my opinion for 9 over and over. I can live with 8 even; however, I would hate to see it drop any further than that.

103

THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Jul 28, 2006, 13:23

Well looking back 9 people voted to reduce keepers by one. Four opposed.

Eh, like I said, 8 I could live with but going any further I think is drastically changing the fabric of our league.

Bad teams can rebuild. Ex: Me
Good teams reap the benefits of good managing Ex: Ref

In football it is vital to have that extra slot or so to develop sleeper talent, young rooks or even to have a solid backup QB if you are so lucky.

Like I said, I have fought for this over and over. No matter my keeper situation my stance as always been the same. I just don't think it helps us any by reducing keepers by more than one - it hinders managers ability to take some chances on certain players.

104

Promize
ID: 141018197
Sun, Jul 30, 2006, 18:25

As I said last year when I brought the topic up, I am also in favor of lowering the keepers. I just think it will open up the league some and give each team a chance to win every year.

105

Promize
ID: 141018197
Sun, Jul 30, 2006, 18:25

When is the draft order going to be announced? Or has it?

106

THK
ID: 2510332316
Sun, Jul 30, 2006, 20:12

I just think it will open up the league some and give each team a chance to win every year.

I hope not. That is one of the main reasons I don't want keepers lowered. Every team should have the chance to win every year. Good managers should get advantages. Poor managers (or bad luck I'll say) should have to work hard to rebuild. That is something I enjoy and like to see. I wish we had brought this up more in depth over the last 3 years because I would have said the same thing. I don't think I look as credible now that my team is good! ;-)

107

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sun, Jul 30, 2006, 20:48

We set this league up the way we did for a reason.
To now turn it upside down by making major changes to it does away with the reasons most people joined it.

I've very adament about staying at 9 keepers.

I really don't want to see it change.

Cliff

108

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 16:41

OK this vote is going to happen very soon. AF, you NEED to get your email fixed on the league site so you can participate in this vote. If anyone has anything else to add to the issues we'll be voting now, speak now or forever hold your peace.

109

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 17:02

AF has the correct email on the site already. He confirmed to me that it is correct.

110

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 17:17

Post 15 and 16 say differently. When I sent an invite to the address on the site it bounced. Obviously I'd like to snd it to the G24 site so I wouldn't have to enter everyone's email adress again so hopefully the site's email is working now that the site has been renewed.

111

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 17:36

I used the league address and he got it fine, whereas when I tried to use the address in 15 it bounces.

He has updated his address since you sent out the league emails. Not sure what the address in #15 is, but he told me he already updated his email on the league site.

112

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 17:39

OK, Thanks. Vote going out.

113

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 18:06

The league email address bounced and I didn't save the G24 email that I sent out to see if everyone was coming back. So will have to do it the hard way and try again.

114

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 18:22

Ok, I think the vote is out for real this time as I put each team into the address. If you didn't get the email, check your junk email list.

Also, Guru is working on setting up the lottery. We should have it set up so I can run those ping pong balls soon to determine picks 1-16. Remember, we draw 4 different teams ping pong balls to select the top 4 draft picks and then picks 5-16 will fall in behind them in inverse order of record. All other rounds would be determined by inverse order of last year's regular season record for picks 1-16 and playoffs for picks 17-24.

115

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 21:55

Almost half the votes are in already. Thanks!

Take a look on the site at the commish ticker. Just one of the new things offered this year. Right now we have custom messages scrolling across. However, we can also have the following scroll across automatically:

League Standings
High Scorer
Game Of The Week
Injured Players
Power Rankings
Closest Game
Cutoff Dates
On The Block
Roster Trends
Coach Rating
Schedule Difficulty
Guru Spreads

Obviously, some of these I would NOT want scrolling, but a couple might be fun during the season.

116

THK
ID: 2510332316
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 22:24

Ref-
Something is wrong with my depauw email address. No telling what the hell is wrong or when it will be fixed.

Could you email the exact proposal to dsw827@aol.com or just count me in for keeping them at 9 (because that is what I plan to vote for)...

My apologies for the inconvenience

THK

117

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 31, 2006, 23:23

Guru has gotten the program done for the lottery ping pong balls. Here are the odds:

Team Name----Chances per 1000
16 9. Cardinals, 7-6, 1142.4---- 3
15 10. Falcons, 7-6, 929.5---- 4
14 11. Saints, 7-6, 901.0---- 5
13 12. Giants, 7-6, 805.3---- 7
12 13. Bears, 6-7, 918.1---- 9
11 14. Broncos, 6-7, 820.8---- 13
10 15. Chargers, 6-7, 787.3---- 17
9 16. Bengals, 6-7, 782.3---- 23
8 17. Eagles, 5-8, 787.8---- 32
7 18. Jaguars, 5-8, 766.6---- 43
6 19. Packers, 4-9, 808.0---- 59
5 20. Ravens, 4-9, 747.4---- 80
4 21. Bills, 4-9, 710.8---- 108
3 22. Seahawks, 3-10, 804.9---- 147
2 23. Browns, 3-10, 714.1---- 200
1 24. Jets, 3-10, 648.2---- 250

118

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 11:54

Am running the lottery right now...results to follow...

119

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 11:57

The winner of the lottery and the one who will receive the #1 overall pick goes to...

Skineej's Packers!

120

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:00

The #2 Pick goes to:

Promize's Seahawks!

121

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:01

The #3 ball was also the Seahawks so it will be thrown out and re-ran.

122

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:02

The 3rd pick goes to:

GO's Jets!

123

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:03

The 4th pick (5th ball) was also the Jets and will be re-ran.

124

THK
ID: 2510332316
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:04

Damn! Sorry pd! It's ok, Bush is just another Brian Westbrook with a potential of a little better running ability. Most over-hyped player ever...

125

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:05

Again, the next ball came up Jets and will be picked again.

126

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:06

Again the 7th ball was also the Jets and we will keep trying until we find one that isn't a duplicate.

127

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:07

8th ball was the Jets again.

128

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:09

Finally! It took 9 tries but we have our top 4 picks complete.

The #4 overall pick goes to:

Twarpy's Giants!

129

Perm Dude
ID: 217519
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:13

Grrr!

130

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:19

So the top 4 picks will be once again:

#1 Packers - odds 59 out of 1000
#2 Seahawks - 147 of 1000
#3 Jets - 250 of 1000
#4 Giants - 7 of 1000

Obviously those odds are to be the very first pick like skineej and the odds went up as the other balls were "pulled out of the hopper," but not by much.

The rest of the first round will go like this:

#5 Browns
#6 Bills
#7 Ravens
#8 Jaguars
#9 Eagles
#10 Bengals
#11 Chargers
#12 Broncos
#13 Bears
#14 Saints
#15 Falcons
#16 Cardinals
#17 Rams
#18 Chiefs
#19 Vikings
#20 Colts
#21 Raiders
#22 Cowboys
#23 Texans
#24 49ers

The rest of the rounds will go in inverse order of the list in #82. Guru and StL Cards also have the emails of this and hopefully one of them will verify these results shortly.

131

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:25

Many thanks to Guru once again for making this draft lottery possible.

132

THK
ID: 2510332316
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:34

The Saints own #19 (and my 2nd rounder) due to the rapings of my team last year! :-(

Once again I have a few decent guys on the block for picks. Need some picks!

THK

133

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 12:35

Those are simply the draft slots. We will update the entire grid with traded picks soon.

134

skinneej
Leader
ID: 040625911
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 13:15

Well, it's nice to catch a break. Even though my team owns the two longest losing streaks in league history I believe, it had not resulted in the top pick until now. As it turned out, my worst two seasons had other teams that were even worse.

It is a tough break for the teams with the highest odds, so I hope we all look back and see the top 6-7 picks all end up being studs. Unless, someone throws a killer offer at me, I guess Bush will be a Packer.

135

THK
ID: 2510332316
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 14:04

A team with 2 top 15 WRs and a starting RB gets the #1 pick. That sure is the lottery! Although, they don't have a starting QB...

Don't feel bad PD. At least you are the last of the RB picks as opposed to the QBs, Davis and the over-rated WRs.

136

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 14:41

[130] Results are verified.

137

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 15:29

Now just four teams left to vote.

138

Great One
ID: 26742115
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 16:49

Wish all those damn extra Jets choices could have added up to one #1 pick. Oh well. Guess I am in the Brady Quinn sweepstakes already.

139

THK
ID: 2510332316
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 17:23

Brady Quinn would be the right choice for your franchise, but come next year I guaruntee Quinn doesn't go #1 in most rookie drafts.

GO-I sent you over some trade talks.

140

Great One
ID: 26742115
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 17:25

And you know Weis is hyping Brady to Mangini/Tannebaum for sure.

I am looking for RB's obviously. I would consider moving out of this #3 spot if someone has interest in trading into it in exchange for a RB.

141

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 19:52

Just waiting on Dan's vote.

142

THK
ID: 2510332316
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 20:23

I wouldn't hold your breath! I had a trade offer out to him for months. No matter if it was the best trade in the world or not worthy of a counter - he didn't so much as reject it. I figured he is still in baseball mode...

143

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 01, 2006, 20:41

Well, I had a friend find out Dan's info then he talked to Dan and we got his vote. However, it was a voice vote. He said he'd email or post tonight.

The first proposal passes by a vote of 19 Yes and 5 No. I'd like to hold off posting the result of the 2nd proposal until he let's me know in writing.

144

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 10:34

I have updated the scoring to reflect the MFG tweak. I've also updated the draft order for CBS' list of the draft order. Remember that is only for the first round and does not take traded picks into account. Just draft position.

I've still not heard officially from Dan. Let me share with you why the hesitancy. The vote before Dan's vote is 12 Yes and 11 No. So his vote is the deciding vote. I am told that he verbally said that his vote is Yes. Last thing I want to do is to say it passes then he votes officially otherwise. Also, each of you were asked to vote via email and he's the only one not to do so. I like to keep the emails in case there is ever a question of an individual(s) vote. Apparently, Dan hasn't been answering other's emails as well. I think he will be fine as the season gets underway and I know he's training for a new job. As much as we'd all like to put this behind us and move on to exact dates of Keeper and draft dates, I'd like to be 100% sure Dan officially is voting Yes as a Yes vote would change a rule.

145

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 11:03

Dan emailed me on my Yahoo address, the one that I had been using the past few years, but switched to gmail after my account went down for 2 weeks before it came up. Anyhow, Dan did in fact vote yes to change keepers to 8.

So the final vote for proposal #2 is 13 Yes and 11 No. So in 2007 we will only have 8 Keepers. Obviously, I'd like more of a mandate, but as long as we use a simple majority vote to change a rule, then we can't have issues with a close vote. Point is that a majoity of managers have voted to knock it down to 8.

It's funny, I always make a vote prediction before every vote. This time I guessed #1 20-4 and #2 14-10 and was only one off of both. And one manager who had previously said he was voting to knock it down to 8 officially voted to keep it at 9.

As far as draft dates go, the 2nd week of the preseason will end the evening of Mon Aug 21. IF we wanted to make sure we got that game in, we could make keepers due at Noon on Tues Aug. 22 and start the draft on Wed Aug 23rd. Here's the kicker though. We could say approx. Noon on the 23rd in case the commishs couldn't get it all ready by then or if we got it up we could start a little earlier. Or we could make it the 24th. We do want to get away from starting it unofficially so much before the clock actually starts. Thoughts?

146

Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 11:44

Have I mentioned how much I really, really detest changing the fundamental rules of a keeper league by a simple majority vote. It really is disturbing.

147

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 11:58

mbj, perhaps you could propose otherwise. For instance, our arbitration issue is 2/3 vote in this league to overrule a commish decision. Perhaps major rules changes could be the same?

148

Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 12:07

I certainly think they should be, ref.

149

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 12:22

I second MBJ and formally propose that we adopt a policy requiring a 2/3 majority of all votes cast in order to change the fundamental rules of our league.

When you have a case where it is essentially a 50-50 split and some people voting because they feel that is what the league wants, then that is hardly a mandate.

We've had a pretty successful league so far in G24 with 3 different champions in 4 years and quite a bit of movement in the top positions, so I feel any changes should require more than a simple majority.

150

Perm Dude
ID: 075428
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 12:40

Define "fundamental," Cards.

151

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 13:06

I knew that would come that. In general, I would say if it is written on our rule page, then it should probably be voted on prior to changing. However, I would not consider such things as raising the dues by .50 to cover costs a 'fundamental' rule change. If the commishes decide to institute a rule change, for example, we discussed adding the FG tweak without a league vote, then it could be overridden by a 2/3 majority. We decided it was a big enough change to vote on it though. It would seem to make sense that any league rule change of significance should be held to a 2/3 majority as well. While 'significance' may be subjective, there is still the ability to overturn any attempt at a rule change that was not voted on, so the definition isn't so important in my mind.

I really wouldn't want to start changing things like positons, number of teams, etc by a simple majority. That's just my opinion.

152

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 13:21

I gotta say that I agree with Cards. There are certain things like minor tweaks to a rule like I considered in the MFG vote. But I consider Keepers a major rule change (fundamental). There was absolutely not one objection in our thread to the MFG tweak. It could have become rule right then, yet in our vote there were 5 that voted against it. When there is no one around to play Devil's advocate or seriously have an issue with it, then we start assuming things are all good. I also have a problem changing a rule like that by a simple majority. I want a league mandate. Perhaps 60% is enough, but 2/3 seems better and that's an easy 16 of 24 votes. 3 more votes, but the margin is 16-8 instead of 13-11. 16-8 is a mandate IMO. However, there are some issues that I think simple majority is fine and some issues that don't need a vote at all, i.e. cost of plaque and shipping etc. Esp. when any remaining funds stay on account for future years that may defray the costs down the road.

It would have been nice to have this rule in previously, but no one had proposed it. There are a few issues in baseball that have been passed by simple majority that wouldn't have made it with the higher threshold. Albeit, this proposal would only apply to this league. I guess that the commishs would have to make the determination if we had to have a vote if it was a 2/3 or simple majority with these ideas in mind.

Personally, I don't think going from 9 to 8 affects the league much. But I would NOT have been happy if we went from 9 to 7 and especially by the slimmest of margins as I think that drastically alters strategy. I try to always vote using the big picture of what I think is best for the league. Still, like I said before, to have a rule changed w/o a mandate is troubling.

153

GoatLocker
ID: 36382616
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 15:31

So, going from 9 to 8 and just adding kickiers and Defs to the pool of available players impacts things.

Sure it does.

NOT

Cliff

154

Doug
ID: 36613115
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 19:24

I think it's more the case that there are teams who would not have kept a D or K even with 9 keepers... so the difference with 8 is, do they keep an older player who's still performing at a fantasy-starter level (in my case Terry Glenn), or a younger player with upside (in my case Ryan Moats)? I think that's the potential "impact" of this change... some managers may have to make choices between "this year" and "hold for the future". Sure, in some cases the K or D will be the player who would be "on the bubble" and gets cut, but in other cases it'll have a more significant effect on keepers. If we were going to 8 this year... I think my choice of who to cut last would be between Moats, Glenn, and Rackers... but I don't know which it would be. Fortunately, this year I don't have to decide.

155

THK
ID: 2510332316
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 19:29

Doug-
There is no way you could cut Glenn in this scenario. All it is forcing 1 of 2 things:
#1) You don't get the roster spot to develop talent: Moats
#2) A kicker

I think that spot to develop talent is crucial. Sometimes you will have to choose between two guys with potential instead of a guy and a kicker. Oh well...

156

Doug
ID: 36613115
Wed, Aug 02, 2006, 20:08

LOL, well, I guess that's why we all manage our own teams! =-p No, obviously I wouldn't cut him now... but I guess I'm sort of thinking ahead to when the change goes into effect a year from now, at which point Glenn will be 33, and we'll have seen how many targets TO takes away from him this year...

157

Dan
ID: 26743223
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 00:46

Hey guys, I just wanted to give you all an update on my status. I've been out of town for the past 8 weeks for training. I've got a fair bit of reading to catch up on in here, but I get home on Saturday and things should be back to normal. Look forward to getting caught up and the season getting underway. Anyways talk to you all soon!

158

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 11:56

Seeing no discussion, we will set a tentative Keeper date of Noon on Tuesday August 22 and the draft start sometime around Noon on Thursday August 24.

Cards and I will start work on the schedule asap. It's a long and drawn out process as we have to do everything manually. We use two random draws to get the matchups except for weeks 5 and 9 that use strength of schedule from last year. The only thing consistent is that your seeding counterpart in the other conference will have the exact same schedule as you do as far as what seed you play when. Complete description is in the rules.

159

THK
ID: 2510332316
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 12:01

Dan-
Training for? Good to see you back...

I am ready to roll to the Championship! :-)

160

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 12:50

Here is the seeding for Interconference play for weeks 5 and 9:

Seeding AFC
1 Texans
2 Raiders
3 Colts
4 Chiefs
5 Broncos, 6-7, 820.8
6 Chargers, 6-7, 787.3
7 Bengals, 6-7, 782.3
8 Jaguars, 5-8, 766.6
9 Ravens, 4-9, 747.4
10 Bills, 4-9, 710.8
11 Browns, 3-10, 714.1
12 Steelers (Now Jets), 3-10, 648.2

Seeding NFC
1 49ers
2 Cowboys
3 Vikings
4 Rams
5 Cardinals, 7-6, 1142.4
6 Falcons, 7-6, 929.5
7 Saints, 7-6, 901.0
8 Giants, 7-6, 805.3
9 Bears, 6-7, 918.1
10 Eagles, 5-8, 787.8
11 Packers, 4-9, 808.0
12 Seahawks, 3-10, 804.9

161

THK
ID: 2510332316
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 13:25

I wouldn't mind switching conferences...

162

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 03, 2006, 13:35

Something that has bothered me are the Strength of Schedule Assignments. AP10 came up with that based on another league he'd seen. Problem is that it's almost random. It doesn't really place you on SOS. For instance the midling teams have to face the #1 teams etc. Cards and I are shooting back and forth some ideas but in the meantime if anyone else has an idea for a TRUE SOS schedule for weeks 5 and 9, let us see them asap.

163

THK
ID: 2510332316
Fri, Aug 04, 2006, 09:51

I am leaving to drive to Oklahoma today. I am stopping at my dads tonight and will have access for about 20 minutse this afternoon. After that I will not be able to be reached until Monday most likely. I will have limited access from Monday until the 17th. With our schedule that shouldn't be much of a problem though.

164

Doug
ID: 47725416
Fri, Aug 04, 2006, 17:28

FYI, I expect to be out of town from August 18 through 27. I should have reasonable internet access, however. Just wanted to get it down in writing here for future reference.

165

Promize
ID: 141018197
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 17:41

Can we start dropping players?
Can we start the non official official draft early?

Can you tell im eager to play?

166

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 18:01

I am ready to announce my keepers and start drafting also. I looked at every team to guess who their keepers would be. Maybe three or four teams where that 9th keeper was a coin flip, but for the most part fairly cut and dry.

167

Perm Dude
ID: 1973359
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 18:25

I'm not dropping anyone until right before keepers are declared. You just never know what will happen.

169

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 20:07

Using the seedings in 160 and a random number roll of 1-12, teams for scheduling purposes will now be in this new slot:
11
6
12
5
2
4
7
8
1
3
10
9

So the Texans and 49ers will now be #11, etc. Therefore the first week when team 1 plays team 12 it isn't the best vs. the worst right off the bat and it is totally random which manager you will play in the orund robin part. Still working on weeks 5 and 9 but hopefully it will be more fair to the teams that finished lowest last year.

170

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 16:45

Cards and I have spent all day working on the schedule and we have it up and it appears right. Weeks 5 and 9 is subject to change.

The other 11 weeks are totally random. You play everyone in your own league once. We can't find a mistake but please look over your individual teams. Mistakes are easy to fix now but perhaps impossible once the season starts.

AP10 sold us a bill of goods when he said he had a SOS schedule a couple years back. After last year's schedule I was like this makes no sense so after talking with Cards, we went to work on a REAL SOS that would help the lower teams. Cards came up with a formula and after discussion he changed some things around. There is still one little issue that bothers us about this, but I'll let him explain. Anyhow, many thanks to Cards.

171

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 17:21

The original idea behind the 2 inter-conference games was that they would be scheduled based on strenght of schedule using the previous year as the criteria. What evolved however is not a weighted schedule at all, but rather an even scheduling. The current rule is:

These games will take place in weeks 5 and 9 and will use this schedule based on the separate conference standings from each league 1 vs 6 & 7, 12 vs 7 & 6, 2 vs 5 & 8, 11 vs 8 & 5, 3 vs 4 & 9, 10 vs 9 & 4.

If you notice, the sum of all the seeds faced equals 13 in both weeks. This does not present a 'harder' schedule for better teams as anticipated.

Ref and I discussed a myriad of possibilities. We came up with something as a first pass, but have since determined some flaws that will need to be addressed, so the week 5 and 9 schedule will be changed.

172

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 17:32

So we can either return to the even scheduling or we can figure out how to make it harder for higher seeds and easier for lower seeds, etc. as we first anticiapted when we announced the idea to go to SOS a couple years ago. We have several ideas, just trying ti implement them so no two teams have the same schedule and the sum of seeds goes up as the seeding from 1-12 goes up in both conferences.

173

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 17:39

I don't want to sound dumb after just taking a quick glance, but why can't the #1 and #2 from both play each other, followed by the 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10, and 11/12?

Week 5:
1 Texans vs 1 49ers
2 Raiders vs 2 Cowboys
3 Colts vs 3 Vikings
4 Chiefs vs 4 Rams
5 Broncos vs 5 Cardinals
6 Chargers vs 6 Falcons
7 Bengals vs 7 Saints
8 Jaguars vs 8 Giants
9 Ravens vs 9 Bears
10 Bills vs 10 Eagles
11 Browns vs 11 Packers
12 Steelers(Jets) vs 12 Seahawks

Week 9:
1 Texans vs 2 Cowboys
2 Raiders vs 1 49ers
3 Colts vs 4 Rams
4 Chiefs vs 3 Vikings
5 Broncos vs 6 Falcons
6 Chargers vs 5 Cardinals
7 Bengals vs 8 Giants
8 Jaguars vs 7 Saints
9 Ravens vs 10 Eagles
10 Bills vs 9 Bears
11 Browns vs 12 Seahawks
12 Steelers(Jets) vs 11 Packers

174

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 18:23

This is something that has evolved over time. Initially we had a random pairing, however, we thought it would it interesting to add a weighting to those 2 interconference games, since we can't add any weighting to the intra-conference games since everyone plays everyone. We certainly have discussed 1v1 and 1v2. In this league a #1 seed isn't necessarily stronger than a #4 seed, and all divisions aren't equal in strength either, so we were looking for a way to have some randomness in the scheduling without having situations like a 1 vs 12.

One thought was to have a probability based assignment where like seeded teams would have the highest probability of facing each other and high seeded teams having a low probability of facing each other.

Another idea is to have a random draw within a bracketed range, for instance, no seed could face a team more than +/- 3 seeds from its own.

175

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 18:50

We also didn't like this scheduling because teams play the same two opponents in their "cluster." We have tried many many combinations. One would have you playing your seed counterpart with a random +/-3 team. The one we really like is the random with a +/- 3 but we found in our trial that team 3 and 4 both played a much tougher scheule than team two. So we reordered the sum seedings to equal or greater seeds as we went down the seeds and we still got team 1 and 3 playing the same schedule and the nfc sums were different than the afc seeds. We might be making this too complicated or getting too fine, but I think we will figure this out soon.

176

TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 19:10

If that is the case then you could make it random between 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 but I don't think you are going to come up with anything better than the simple 1/2 vs 1/2, 3/4 vs 3/4, etc. It's not perfect, but it is better than 1 vs 12.

Obviously, we don't have 32 teams like the NFL does, but they do not have random scheduling. Every team has 6 games vs their division, 4 games vs a AFC division, 4 vs a NFC division and the final two vs the other two AFC division teams ranked the same as them (1, 2, 3, or 4). A good example is 9-7 Miami as a 2 seed having to play 11-5 Pitt and 10-6 KC (they also play the entire AFC South which includes 2 seed 12-4 Jax). Another example is 9-7 Dallas as a 3 seed getting to play 5-11 Arizona and 5-11 Detroit, both three seeds.

177

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 11:08

1 would never play 12, but right now both 1 and 12 have the same schedules. Same goes for 2 and 11, 3 and 10, 4 and 9, etc. While it might be even, it is not what we intended for a SOS. By playing a cross division, even when the AC comes out perfect, the NFC doesn't, etc. I've spent several hours on this even last night and Cards and I have put a ton of hours on this overall. TB's post is what I had first come up with, but I know we can always fall back and use that if we have to. There has got to be a way that we don't have to have all these teams playing the exact same teams. But...maybe not.

178

Doug
ID: 1378713
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 14:29

A slightly less severe (IMHO) alternative to 1/2 vs. 1/2 etc. might be the following... basically you play one game +2, one game -2 (except at the top or bottom of the grid)...

1 vs. 1/3
2 vs. 2/4
3 vs. 1/5
4 vs. 2/6
5 vs. 3/7
6 vs. 4/8
7 vs. 5/9
8 vs. 6/10
9 vs. 7/11
10 vs. 8/12
11 vs. 9/11
12 vs. 10/12

179

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 16:02

Doug, that is a nice one. That's what I'm talking about. I've tested it a couple of ways thus far and it has come out true. The AFC/NFC combined matchups work (afc and nfc seeds have same schedule) and the sums of seeds are in equal or descneding order. i.e.:

1 vs. 1/3 = 4
2 vs. 2/4 6
3 vs. 1/5 6
4 vs. 2/6 8
5 vs. 3/7 10
6 vs. 4/8 12
7 vs. 5/9 14
8 vs. 6/10 16
9 vs. 7/11 18
10 vs. 8/12 20
11 vs. 9/11 20
12 vs. 10/12 22

This gives weight to the seeding in general. Naturally Seeds 1 and 3 seem to have a clear advantage but you can't go two steps up for them. Also, with the turn around from year to year there is typiclaly enough change for that not to be a major factor. For instance, I have a #3 seed, but my team has fallen way off so I may play like a #5 or #6 seed (or lower if I can't find some diamonds!). BMD's team is a #1 seed, but wouldn't have even made the playoffs in the NFC and yet could have easily won it all with one substitution. CT's Cardinals had a ton of points for but his schedule left him only at 7-6 and on the outside of the playoffs, yet is much better than a #5 seed. These are just a few examples, but as long as we can make it work and as equitable as possible within our vision, I'm sure it's a possibility. Right now your idea is certainly being considered. THANKS!

180

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 16:03

That should say seeds 1 and 2 seem to have an advantage.

182

Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:09

No problem, and thanks for the feedback.

Here's a similar system based off of +/-3 instead, but it required a few more tweaks to make the numbers come out smoothly:

1 vs. 1/5 = 6
2 vs. 3/4 = 7
3 vs. 2/6 = 8
4 vs. 2/7 = 9
5 vs. 1/8 = 9
6 vs. 3/9 = 12
7 vs. 4/10 = 14
8 vs. 5/12 = 17
9 vs. 6/11 = 17
10 vs. 7/11 = 18
11 vs. 9/10 = 19
12 vs. 8/12 = 20

This system makes SOS a little "flatter" than the +/-2... so it's just a question of what the appropriate level of "flatness" is.

You could say "Oh, the #2 seed only has to play against 3s and 4s..." but the #11 seed is only playing against 9s and 10s, so even in this "flatter" case there's still a pretty significant SOS weighting based on last year's performance.

I have no strong preference between the two, just figured I'd present the option.

183

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:13

I was thinking, what if we had 1 and 2 and 11 and 12 play each other like TB said and then 3-10 play an alternate way? Only problem with that is then again that seeds 3 and 4 have it like 1 and 2 did earlier. Cards also has a couple ideas working that look cool too. I like the idea of +/- 3 simply because it gives us more options and there is a natural upwards and downwards progression from year ot year for most teams, but it gives even more seeding advantages to the top teams and hurts the bottom teams even more as you showed (ie 1 plays 1 and 4). I would love to have a small program written that did it randomly that would allow all teams to play two teams within +/- 3 positions of them. It would even be nicer if the sum of the seeds descended, but don't know if that is possible with two seperate conferences. I even tried to make it so each team had to play their corresponding seed one game and was random +/-3 in the other game but not sure we can make it work. This way the seeding was taken into account yet their was a random element to it that didn't vary too far from their seed. Thoughts?

184

Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:24

My guess is that any random-seeding system is going to be somewhat problematic, both in terms of fairness but moreso in terms of actual implementation.

There's already a bit of randomness in the sense that you mentioned... basically, last year's 1 seed might not be as good this year, or last year's 9 seed might be near the top. So I think we'll be best off with a "fixed" pairing system for the game matchups, and let the fact that last year's performance is only a moderate indicator of this year's performance be the more "random" element of it.

185

Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:29

Another way of describing the system in 182 is to describe 4 "tiers"... seeds 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12

Tier 1 faces an opponent from both tiers 1 and 2
Tier 2 faces an opponent from both tiers 1 and 3
Tier 3 faces an opponent from both tiers 2 and 4
Tier 4 faces an opponent from both tiers 3 and 4

I think it's too severe to have a system where teams in the top tier are ONLY playing other top-tier teams. I'm all for parity, it just seems overly harsh IMHO. This way they still play both SOS games against teams that were in upper half (while teams in bottom tier only play teams that were in the bottom half).

The specific matchups within this system are manipulated such that the "seed sums" continually increase (or at worst stay constant).

186

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:57

I don't think we can have 4 tiers. 3 tiers is the minimum I think. I know Guru is out of town. Wonder if I can find RSF or one of the other coding gods to see if they have an idea how this could work via random or it needs to have a set in stone approach each year. I might email rsf and see what he thinks.

187

Doug
ID: 361412812
Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 20:22

Just to clarify, the system in 182 already IS a 4-tier system. It's just that the pairings are not random (so that the seed sums will always increase). Actually, looking at it now, I think there's a tweak that might even slightly improve it and get rid of the 2 cases where sums are constant.

188

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 16:15

Something that TB mentioned is intriguing to me. Why not mimic the NFL and use division seeding? Since we have even division numbers it would work perfectly. Week5 we would have AFC West 1 vs NFC North 1, AFC East 1 vs NFC South 1, etc. Then in week 9 we reverse it to be AFC West 1 vs NFC South 1 and AFC East 1 vs NFC North 1, etc. We could use playoff seeding at the end of the regular season, which is probably more indicitave of strength than playoff finish anyway.

A system like that would be easy to document, easy to schedule, mimics the NFL, and overall it will limit the differential between seeds.

I also like the idea of playing one team from each division. Another thing it does is really brings SOS into play for divisions and conferences. The top team within a division is ensured of playing harder teams than their lower division rivals, while inter-division rivals face the same test as their like seed in the other division. So in my division the NFC South, I would play the #1 seeds in both AFC divisions, whereas the second team in the South, only has to face the #2 seeds. My schedule is always harder, the #2 seed is harder than #3, etc. At the same time the NFC North #1 seed will face the same teams that I do, etc.

Right now I favor either that or Doug's post in 178. So far any randomized approach, even using weighting towards like teams and restricting the matchups to +/-3 from a seed, still ends up with one or more lower seeded teams playing a tougher schedule than some higher seeds, and by the time enough restrictions are put in place to limit that possibility, you might as well just use Doug's outline in 178.

That said, I think the division pairings is worth looking into for the reasons I gave above.

189

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 16:50

Cards and I have discussed his last post and I misread his initial email to me. Re-reading it here, I like it. Of course we have to figure out the top 4 teams in each conference as we don't always havethe top 2 teams in each div make the playoffs and with our playoff finish-based seeding coule throw a wrench into things. For instance, I don't remember anyone else in the East making it, so I am supposed to be #3 seed, but then I'd be #1 seed? BMD was last team to make it but is the #1 seed, so I can see one little issue.

I also like Doug's idea. Doug did you figure out the tweak you were referring to earlier?

190

Doug
ID: 53728811
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 18:03

Tweak:

1 vs. 2/4 = 6
2 vs. 1/6 = 7
3 vs. 3/5 = 8
4 vs. 1/8 = 9
5 vs. 3/7 = 10
6 vs. 2/9 = 11
7 vs. 5/10 = 15
8 vs. 4/12 = 16
9 vs. 6/11 = 17
10 vs. 7/11 = 18
11 vs. 9/10 = 19
12 vs. 8/12 = 20

Same deal as before with respect to tiers. Just switched some matchups around within the tiers.

191

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 08, 2006, 23:58

After much debate and polling several managers, we've decided we like Doug's suggestion in 190 the best. If anyone has any questions, issues or further suggestions, please let us know asap!

192

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 12:07

The language used in my league dues email was vague and TB was under the impression that he could opt out whenever he wanted. He was in last year, but has decided he would rather just play for the fun of it and would like to opt out for ever more. If anyone else wishes to opt out at this time, please let us know. The intent of the rule was to try to keep people from only being in during a year they think they could win. We obviously are open to special circumstances, but in general it seems best to have everyone in every year or out every year to keep things balanced for everybody.

Despite what has been said on the boards, you really can change your team around in a short time. Look at BMD almost winning it all last year with a team he didn't expect to compete with. Toral also turned his team around too. The team I won with last year wasn't exactly laden with studs and my best player didn't even play during the playoffs at all. The year before RFS won and the next year finished dead last. This format is set up to allow rebuilding teams a much better chance to get better than a good team. Better draft choice, better waiver wire, easier schedule, and then if you happen to play in a division that is weaker that year, who knows what can happen. I'm sure Roy is excited this year to have LJ as his starting RB.

193

Promize
ID: 141018197
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 12:44

I've gone from 2nd to gutter in just two seasons :) Yay me! Damn Ricky and his drugs!

194

RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 20:18

I coded something up that will generate a schedule. Its all variable driven, so it could be used for as many teams (in your case 12 per conference), as many games (in your case 2) and as much range (in your case +/- 3).

It needs some tweaking because, currently, it might take a couple of times running it to get a completely filled in array (with so much overlap, some teams have all options removed before it can select).

Let me know if you still need it. I'll set it up as a webpage somewhere.

195

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 01:20

Yeah let's see it. Thanks!

196

RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Fri, Aug 11, 2006, 01:53

Setup for G24 league.

I'll gussy it up it later (add the buttons to make it more versatile for user-set team count, games, variable range scale.)

For now, just refresh it for different results.

197

RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Fri, Aug 11, 2006, 01:55

Oh, I should say its set for 24 teams, 2 games and a +/- 3 range in this example.

198

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sat, Aug 12, 2006, 16:57

Kirk - re #192, please resend the league dues email. It didn't make it to my Yahoo account.

199

deepsnapper
Leader
ID: 017103420
Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 19:01

Thanks Kirk, I got it.

200

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 14, 2006, 23:16

I will email this as well...

I do not see a need for a Keeper thread this year as CBS has improved their Keeper software. To allow for this, Keepers must be declared by 11:59 p.m. on Monday August 21st.

You must declare your keepers on the CBS site by checking the box next to the name of your player on your lineup page. You may change them up until the deadline. It will not let you keep more than 9. On August 22nd, the site will automatically drop all players who do not have a check mark next to them.

Again, if you do not declare your keepers by the deadline, they will all be dropped and StL and I will not be happy if we have to figure out who you had to choose your keepers. This may place your standing in the league in jeopardy.

I highly recommend that you go ahead and check off your likely 9 now as you can change them up until CBS drops then unchecked names. If you have any questions, please ask!

201

StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 01:20

I think we absolutely need a keeper thread. That would be the only documentation in case of disputes, errors, etc.

When setting your keepers, you need to also click the set lineup button in order for it to take effect.

202

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 08:53

And if you mark 10 and then hit set lineup, it will drop off the 10th player you had marked so that it only shows 9 keepers.

Actually, you can mark all of them.
When you hit set lineup though, the only checkmarks it will keep are the first 9.

Cliff

203

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 10:11

I got an email asking for a keeper thread too for historical documentation. SO I'll go ahead and create one.

204

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 13:45

Anyone needing depth, I'm interested in moving Gonzo, Toomer, Wells, Suggs and perhaps another player for a better RB.

205

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 16:14

This thread is apparently too large so I've started a new one as requested here.

Forum: footPage 4573Subject: Gurupie 24 '06 Pre-season Discussion

Forum: foot
Page 4573
Subject: Gurupie 24 '06 Pre-season Discussion