|
Woohoo I broke 60. Suck my dick, world!
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
THROW A loving TD MCCOWN god damnit Tiny baby jesus gave you this overtime, don't blow it
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Sounds like Cook is out for the year. Anyone interested in McKinnon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Is that an accurate score for Bobby Wagner? 12.5pts for 4 tackles, 2 assists, 1/2 sack 1 fumble recovery and a TD? seems low for all that
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
therealVECNAmfers posted:Is that an accurate score for Bobby Wagner? 12.5pts for 4 tackles, 2 assists, 1/2 sack 1 fumble recovery and a TD? seems low for all that He's not getting any points from the TD. Feels like that's a mistake with IDP scoring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Yeah, defensive players don't have "Number of Fumble Recoveries for TDs" which I believe is the flag that needs to be set. The way it's currently set up ANYONE who returns a fumble for a TD won't get any points I dont think. What the hell how does this Custom Scoring thing work? How hosed up is this thing. What a loving bullshit mess this thing is. Ugh. Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
The top image is how we currently have scoring set up. I propose we should change it to something like the bottom.  This would allow any player who does anything (even punts for fucks sake) will get points for anything they do. Currently we have 3 different subsets which is screwing this up a bit. Like, why do we have a section for QB/TE/WR/RB and then recreate it in the one for DE/DT/LB/S/CB ?  If we just lumped them all together it would get rid of redundancy. Defensive guys need a few special scoring things like: Number of Defensive Fumble Recovery TDs, Passes defensed, blocked punts, sacked QB's, Tackles for loss... things that are purely defensive. Everything else should apply to all players in my opinion. While the offensive side (or just give it to everyone because why the gently caress not) needs things like: Number of Offensive Fumble Recovery TDs and Passing TD's and crap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Triple post FTW. I am looking at another couple leagues and they all do this. Every single position available has scoring for pretty much everything.  The only thing special about this is that RB's get half PPR and WR's get full PPR. So RB is excluded from the "everyone" group for receptions up top and gets it's own group for receptions at the bottom. Every single player (other than coach) has punting scoring turned on. Because why the gently caress not? Coaches have their own set of scoring and that's it.  Commissioners, are we good to make this change? I vote yes.
Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Swarmin Swedes posted:Well played, I ll start him Ash should have started him, it's been ~60hrs, so we're past the 48hr mark. So we should promote Jamaal, and drop who? Jamaal should have played, so swap him with Melvin Gordon (doesn't change outcome of the game) and then give Ash till say 8pm EST tonight to drop someone before we cut one randomly? Edit: See below cuz I am dumb. Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:So what happened here with Jamaal Williams? Ash has to start Jamaal in week 5 (my steal attempt occurred Friday PM, which is more than 48h before his next game (Sunday/Oct 8), but after his week 4 game). However, rules say that he needs to make roster room within 48h -- so that's the piece he has to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Zauper posted:Ash has to start Jamaal in week 5 (my steal attempt occurred Friday PM, which is more than 48h before his next game (Sunday/Oct 8), but after his week 4 game). However, rules say that he needs to make roster room within 48h -- so that's the piece he has to do. I'm a gigantic dumdum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:
Yeah, I think it should be OK. The reason I originally split them out is because, in our league rules, we have separate entries for offensive and defensive scoring. For example, defensive players get points for forced fumbles, but strictly speaking, offensive players don't. Similarly, and relevant to this case, we list 6 points for fumble recovered for TD for offense, but we do not list it for IDP. However, for IDP we do simply list "touchdowns" as 6 points (which I think we added more recently), so yeah, the fumble recovered for TD should probably count. The other reason I split them out is because I was originally following help-page advice from MFL and basically it suggested to do it that way.  Zauper posted:Ash has to start Jamaal in week 5 (my steal attempt occurred Friday PM, which is more than 48h before his next game (Sunday/Oct 8), but after his week 4 game). However, rules say that he needs to make roster room within 48h -- so that's the piece he has to do. Yeah he has to start him in week 5. But... quote:9.9.2 The owner of the player then has up to 48 hours to block your steal attempt. The only way to block a steal attempt is to commit to starting that player in his next NFL game. That means you must promote the player - dropping players as necessary to make roster space and/or cap space - and then put that player into a starting spot and leave him there until his game locks. What he has to do within 48 hours is "commit to" starting the player - and starting the player means you have to put them into a starting spot, by promoting them. He obviously can't put him in a starting spot until it's possible to set rosters for week 5, which is after Monday night's game. I think this rule probably should be re-worded. Having your taxi squad guy stolen is already a significant punishment, I don't see any reason why the owner should have to promote the player early. I suggest something like quote:9.9.2: The owner of the player then has up to 48 hours to block your steal attempt, by committing to starting that player in his next NFL game. This is partially a clarification, but I'm also suggesting a new sub-rule to account for the "impossible to block" scenario. Alternatively, we could explicitly say the owner being stolen from is simply screwed and can't protect a taxi player that they're unable to start that week due to roster slots already being locked. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Those changes seem reasonable to me, but I'd also suggest clarifying the timeline for promoting -- does it have to be done before the waiver period before the player is playing? (e.g. if they're playing on Thursday, the promotion must occur prior to Wednesday waivers; if it's Sunday/Monday, prior to the Saturday waivers)? I mean, at the end of the day, you're committing to promoting the player and keeping them on your roster. Given that, it feels weird to let someone hold what is functionally an extra roster spot for a long period of time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
I don't see why? The commitment is to start the player, as long as the owner does that, does it matter how they decide to shuffle their roster beforehand? Just as an example, what if they want to clear a roster slot via trade rather than simply dropping a valuable player - is it bad for them to get to have some time to pursue trade opportunities? The theft isn't of a roster slot, it's of a taxi player. The block of the theft requires the owner to start the rookie, permanently losing the ability to put that rookie on taxi, in addition to whatever risk is inherent in the rookie's performance that week. Beyond that requirement, what is the purpose of additional restrictions or time limits?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't see why? The commitment is to start the player, as long as the owner does that, does it matter how they decide to shuffle their roster beforehand? Sure, 'some time' is reasonable. 48 hours (what the current rules seem to say) is reasonable; 72 would also be. quote:The owner of the player then has up to 48 hours to block your steal attempt. The only way to block a steal attempt is to commit to starting that player in his next NFL game. That means you must promote the player - dropping players as necessary to make roster space and/or cap space - and then put that player into a starting spot and leave him there until his game locks. You know that the player is starting someone who isn't on their roster, and that means that they, yes, essentially have 25 roster spots. When you must drop (or IR, or TS, or trade) a player in order to become compliant, you are sitting on an extra roster spot for a period of time. It's not clear to me why that's appropriate. That's the same reason why, for example, you can't change your starting lineup or put in waiver requests when you aren't IR compliant. In fact, this seems more inappropriate than that, because often you will know that a given player may show as Q, but will really be O (e.g. Foster this week), but would need to make roster space for them if you wanted to conduct a waiver transaction. Whereas in the case of this theft, you are functionally increasing their available roster temporarily by 1 to allow them to conduct other transactions in the meantime. If you wanted to put similar rules in place for players that were having a player stolen but didn't have the roster spot for them, that would be one thing -- but that can't be software enforced. Yes, the block requires them to start the rookie and all that that means. It also requires them to promote the rookie to their starting roster. It seems to me that a reasonable timeframe on promoting them to their starting roster is in line with the requirement to promote them and start them. What happens if someone backs out of blocking a steal at the last minute? What if they forget to start the player? The above makes that simple because there's a time limit -- the block fails, and then the stealer has a period of time (I believe that's been interpreted as 24 hours?) to make the space and proceed. Your method makes it much more complex -- do the commissioners undo the block? Well, what if the stealing team then couldn't start them? Do the commissioners pick a player to play the player instead of? That seems awkward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Talking over the proposed rule changes with Leper right now. Probably will revamp the scoring in the offseason, but it's terrifying because of the MFL interface. Clowney got the same type of fumble recovery for TD against Brady in week 3, and that worked. Just checked and Wagner's TD is there now. I didn't do anything yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Alright, so Leper let me know that even by not hitting APPLY TO ALL WEEKS or APPLY TO FUTURE WEEKS and change you make on the scoring side is immediately applied to the current week. Thanks MFL. So what I did was: 1) Add defensive TD's which includes fumbles and pick 6's to the defensive group. Which gave me the following issue:  Because this guy had one pick6 on Brisket. But got 12 points for it, 6 twice. 2) Removed Pick 6's from the "everyone" group which gave me this:  So I think we're good? The only issue is it says "defensive TD" instead of "interception return TD" or "fumble return TD" but who cares. I'd eventually like to give the "everyone" group like 90% of the stuff, but gotta do that in the offseason since it's a huge undertaking. I'll apply this change going forward. New respect for Leper for tweaking this crap. The interface for it is unreal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Zauper posted:Sure, 'some time' is reasonable. 48 hours (what the current rules seem to say) is reasonable; 72 would also be. Yeah so in order: -You're right that that's how the rule can be read. There's multiple sentences, but by having them all in the same rule entry, the implication is that the 48 hours applies to all of the following stuff too. That wasn't my intent, but, it's how the rule is currently written. -You're right that effectively you are getting some time with your full bench, before having to promote someone and therefore make some kind of swap or drop. But unless you're eventually actually dropping a player and leaving that taxi slot open, you're not actually getting an extra bench slot. If you promote the taxi guy and demote another, then you never had to drop anyone and therefore never benefited from the extra slot. -The reasonable time frame for promoting the player you mentioned makes sense (if the league wants a rule like that, I can live with it too) but I think it should be explicitly put into the rules simultaneously with a reasonable blackout period for stealing players that accounts for when rosters are partially or fully locked due to weekly play. E.g., I should not really be allowed to declare a steal on saturday morning of a Monday player that forces someone to either make a decision within less than 24 hours, or be unable to block the steal because their starting roster becomes 100% locked on Sunday morning due to not having any other Monday starting players in that same position. Basically, the interaction of the taxi squad theft timers with the roster slot locks needs to be thought through really carefully. Overall the intent of taxi squad theft is to make it so that owners can't stash startable players on their squads while other owners are suffering from defecits in those positions. But also recognize that having a player stolen from you represents a potentially significant long-term loss, particularly since they're rookies and rookies have huge potential value (along with huge risk). If we are not careful, we overly incentivize thefts and make keeping a rookie way too onerous, especially if they're stolen at specific times of the week. My personal inclination is to make it so that when someone is trying to steal your rookie, you have a legitimate and reasonable opportunity to think things over (or be away from a computer for a day or so), and then keep that rookie by really being able to start them. I do not personally want a system where the taxi squad becomes far too dangerous a place for promising rookies in certain roster slots to ever be stashed, because it's too easy for them to wind up being stolen with little or no practical recourse. To get to the bottom of things for now, though: 1. Rule 9.9.2 is written in a way that could be interpreted as "you must promote the rookie and submit a lineup within 48 hours" but can also be interpreted as "you must commit to starting the rookie within 48 hours, and then (with no additional time restriction) submit a lineup before that rookie's next game". With two possible interpretations of a rule, we need an adjudication by the league commissioners. Teemu and Spermy, please weigh in on this now, so we can determine if there's a rule violation if Ash has not created roster space and promoted Jamaal within 48 hours of the theft being declared. 2. If someone backs out of a steal, it has to be because of one of the listed reasons (injury, suspension, player released from team). And yes, we need to establish what commissioners should do in the complex case where backing out of a steal results in one or the other owner now having to drop a player, or worse, they dropped a player to make room for a steal but now the steal isn't happening, and the player they dropped got picked up by some other team, it could get really messy. The rules are silent on what to do about it but we could face this issue at any time and need to account for it. 3. We do need a solution for what happens if someone breaks the rules, such as by declaring they'll start their rookie and then failing to do so. I imagine it involves a commissioner forcing the rookie into the lineup post-lock, but where exactly? Like if it's a WR, which starting WR do you pull off the roster to put the rookie on? I'm always loathe to add rules midseason, and I've been pretty attentive every week there's steals to look before games start to verify owners have done what they're supposed to do, but absent an explicit rule, it'd wind up being an emergency decision by commissioners to decide what to do. It might be better to come up with a solid rule and put it in place now, rather than next year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:To get to the bottom of things for now, though:  ) I also suspect that frankly the rules weren't written with the idea that you could steal someone after they had played but while rosters were still locked for the week in mind.quote:My personal inclination is to make it so that when someone is trying to steal your rookie, you have a legitimate and reasonable opportunity to think things over (or be away from a computer for a day or so), and then keep that rookie by really being able to start them. I do not personally want a system where the taxi squad becomes far too dangerous a place for promising rookies in certain roster slots to ever be stashed, because it's too easy for them to wind up being stolen with little or no practical recourse. quote:-The reasonable time frame for promoting the player you mentioned makes sense (if the league wants a rule like that, I can live with it too) but I think it should be explicitly put into the rules simultaneously with a reasonable blackout period for stealing players that accounts for when rosters are partially or fully locked due to weekly play. E.g., I should not really be allowed to declare a steal on saturday morning of a Monday player that forces someone to either make a decision within less than 24 hours, or be unable to block the steal because their starting roster becomes 100% locked on Sunday morning due to not having any other Monday starting players in that same position. Basically, the interaction of the taxi squad theft timers with the roster slot locks needs to be thought through really carefully. That also solves the issue you mentioned of stealing a monday player, and the interaction with thursday players. I would also suggest allowing the stealer to trade the player, with the caveat that the player must be started that week. Zauper fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Hmm. Yeah I think we've talked about putting in some kind of window like that before. I'm in favor of it. Compensatory picks for having your rookies stolen is also a possibility. I'm not sure about trading away a rookie being stolen from you. Seems like you benefit (you get the traded thing), the person getting the player benefits (they wanted to start that guy or they wouldn't have done the trade), and there's room for shenanigans (if you decide you don't want to start a rookie to protect him, you would always first seek a trade partner before declaring as much). Maybe compensatory picks would reduce this tendency? This taxi squad stuff is hard. I think it'd be a really good idea to investigate exactly how other dynasty leagues handle it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
I don't know how to respond to the thing like 3 posts up. In my mind it was always a hard 48hr rule. 49th hour the guy is gone. Example 1: See my email and spergy idiot post in the thread. However, it obviously doesn't work that way in real life. Example 2: See everyone else understanding what has to happen for week 5. I still don't know what to say about it. In instances like this I would say 48hrs to make a decision, then implement it asap after the Monday game, and mandatory before the Wednesday waivers. I guess I kind of want to give Zauper +3 dickpoints for testing this but let Ash stand by his 'Yes I am gonna play him' that was posted within 48hrs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
im now like 1.5 points behind, with that smith rushing td e 0.22 down Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
holy poo poo give tyreke the ball Andy
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
no dont e. now i'm half a point up lol andy is so gross I feel bad almost, I mean I can still super easily lose this but I sure don't deserve to win lol now down 0.14, dont get sacked smith, it costs yards haha oh my gooood, im gonna win with the fourth-best qb on my roster this week scoring more than aaron rodgersk Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
My team is terrible at tanking
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
still leading in PF at least 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
I'm stealing JuJu Smith-Schuster from first down syndrome
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
I'm ready to trade away Andy Dalton. He had a bad start to the year, but he put up 31 fantasy points against the Browns, and is facing the Bills this week and then a bye. He'll make a perfectly serviceable backup for any of you guys running thin at the position, and at 29 years old, he'll likely be useful for many years to come. Dalton's $3 salary is a bargain for that kind of utility, I feel. I'm looking for draft picks, maybe a tight end or a defensive back, maybe an upgrade at WR or RB, make me an offer and lets deal. I don't have much cap space so I'm not able to make trades for players with high salaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Team Mclean Stealing Gallman
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
1. LOL at Dalton getting traded away so fast, and for just a 3rd round pick. 2. I just noticed that it seems Grid Iron Chefs traded a 4th round pick to Straight Bass Homie at some point, but I do not have recorded 2018 dues from the Chefs (that's Chen Kenichi). Chen, can you verify, and if that's the case, per our rules, you'll need to pony up $30.83 for next year's dues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Just assume everyone has traded me all the picks always
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:1. LOL at Dalton getting traded away so fast, and for just a 3rd round pick. I'm pretty happy with a second and a third for gio! Think about it this way -- all the rookie QBs that got taken in the draft were 2nd/3rd round picks. I needed to free up a roster slot, and so to me trading out one of mckinnon/gio and getting back picks for next year is a good return. Maybe it means I lose gio instead of Mckinnon, but I actually think Gio is on the way down (Mixon's role is increasing), while Mckinnon is on the way up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
FYI to everyone, Zauper pointed out via IM to me that we don't have a rule on the books preventing dropping a player right before waivers and then re-bidding on them. We do have a 24 hour lock on dropped players set in MFL, and I seem to recall us discussing this last year mid-season and putting it into place, but I guess I neglected to create an official rule about it. With Teemu and/or Spermy's permission, I'd like to add this into the rules doc: quote:10.2.5: Players dropped from a roster are locked for 24 hours and cannot be added via FAAB until the lock expires. This prevents an owner from using the FAAB system to quickly drop and then re-add a player at a much lower salary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Ah poo poo it's bye weeks already somebody spot me a qb please
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
What, you don't want to start nathan peterman? jay cutler's on the wire
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
I told him the same thing. We talked about it. There is a rule. Somehow it's just not written down. Put it in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
Yeah that's goodBloody posted:Ah poo poo it's bye weeks already somebody spot me a qb please Joe "Elite" Flacco is available
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Bloody posted:Ah poo poo it's bye weeks already somebody spot me a qb please If someone spots you a QB I'm gonna be so mad after having zero luck trading. McCown vs the browns is gonna be a good matchup. I was tempted not to drop anyone and play him instead of Dalton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
pick up Cassell lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Alright added the new rule! Did everyone do what they're supposed to do re: stealing taxi players
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 16:10
|
|