|
I'd say there's no reason to not allow drops at any time, a waiver period shouldn't be necessary to clear space (you don't need to add/drop, just drop)
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
The bigger issue is stealing players where the slot was played on a Thursday. Say, for example,that I had two DE on KCC, one of whom was a rookie. What if you hit steal on the rookie right after the Thursday game? I probably wouldn't want to roster 2 DE, but I can't drop to promote the other off my taxi squad until after monday. Or even if the rookie plays Monday and my roster slot played Thursday, you could initiate the steal Friday AM and the slot it would go in isn't available (say it's a QB). Maybe in those cases the stealee is allowed to designate the player would start in the following week? Zauper fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Stealing haason reddick from first down syndrome.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm looking to deal DeAndre Washington, to clear cap space. Since I need to clear cap space, I'm looking for: taxi-squad eligible rookies, cheap guys, and draft picks. Washington is a good RB, a handcuff for Beast Mode, with a bright career ahead of him. His salary is currently $9. Doubt you'll get many takers. $9 for a backup that would be in a full blown rbbc if the #1 got injured? He was out touched in the first game by Richard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Just marking this as about 24 hours old now. I will probably start him if I can clear cap space in a way I like, but I have another 24 hours to make my final decision. You currently have 5(?) QBs rostered and 2 on taxi squad. He's probably coming for trubisky next week if you save Watson. Maybe work out a deal with him?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
I'd trade for a vet lb.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
I'd vote for option one. If you have startable guys on your taxi squad, they should be valid targets. Don't want to start them? Trade them. Point is, taxi squad players are intentionally at risk. If other teams think they are startable, you can trade or defend them. If they are startable, but not as good as your starters or fills, then you have a good team. Celebrate it by losing a player. I have structured my team with this in mind. Taxi squad players are at risk, so I have long term players there and more likely impact players / replacement level players sitting on my roster.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Yeah, that's true. My fault for drafting two linebackers and expecting them to grow for 6 weeks instead of having injuries force them to start. It's not even (really) bad for you. Your roster is probably better, but certainly not worse. And given that we have 24 slots for 12 starters, it's not like we don't have bench space. (Though it may hurt your depth for this specific week) My only concern would be tanking combined with taxi squad. There's probably not a world where trubisky is startable this week. If I wanted to steal him for long term gains, how does that compare to intentionally losing games for picks? There should be a lot of leeway, of course, but it's an interesting question.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
I think his question was more 'Would it make sense to expand taxi squads such that rookies or sophmores could go on them / only rookies could go on them, but they could stay through the sophmore season'. I may be putting words in his mouth, but that could be interesting to me as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah. In real life football, taxi squads can have veterans on them. I would be OK with a change to the squad truly being a "well, we're paying you, and we can promote you at any time... but other teams can totally take you and we have to promote you to stop it" thing. It would let us stash perennial backups, guys who spent their entire rookie year injured, poo poo like that. I'm also fine with them being for rookies only, because most of the time, those are the real big question mark "is on a team but could be a bust but maybe not" type of guys. My personal opinions: 1) The 'theft' window should be the same regardless of when players are playing -- by Thursday night (absent waivers), I should be able to set my lineup for next week if I'm on vacation/travel/whatever. A) Theft window -- theft requests must be in by 12 noon on Tuesday, and can be initiated as early as 12 noon on Monday. B) The stealee has until Thursday 12 noon to determine if they will promote and play or let the theft occur. They can have an additional x hours to make the necessary roster adjustments. 2) Each person may only rob from another person's taxi squad once per week, but each person can be targeted for their entire squad. 3) Only rookies may be demoted to the taxi squad, but players can stay on the taxi squad indefinitely. (it can't be used for IR storage unless the rookie got injured while eligible). Same eligibility criteria (can never have been started) applies. So a guy like Washington could be stashed there until he's startable (or a team thinks he's startable), which really lets the taxi squad be used better for development rather than immediate returns. Theoretically could expand the taxi squad a bit if we were doing that. Zauper fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:the bengals cantnot gently caress me. Of course im up against clowney, of course. At least your opponent isn't starting Foreman, who appears to have overtaken Miller for the starting job? Touch count is odd so far.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:they need to use miller to block a little because right now they're getting stacked boxes when he's on the field but it is concerning Ah, gotcha. (I'm watching the boxscore, not the game, so..). Also, should we have like, some kind of chat place instead of just chatting in here? Or is this okay?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
I believe my waivers did not process correctly. My first bid was $2 on fuller (dropping wallace), my second was the timmons bid (also dropping wallace). No one bid on Fuller, so I should have gotten him?quote:Blind Bid Waiver Request
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah the previously processed waivers report doesn't show the fuller bid at all. Here's a uh... thing? That waiver didn't process (to your point), it still shows on my page as being entered on Thursday. Fuller was dropped at the same time as Timmons, so it's not a lockout issue -- you'll notice the time matches the time in my prior post. 
Zauper fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Alright. I will file a ticket, because this is the second time MFL's new waivers code has hosed up. He (Fuller) is injured and not playing this week, so it's not a concern for this weekend's roster. Ideally it would be settled by say Monday so I can have it in mind for the next waiver cycle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK. I filed a ticket, typically they take a full day to respond, so just don't start Timmons either and you should be OK. I have a theory for what happened, though I don't see it spelled out in our rules (and it looks as though there might be an option for it on the commissioner side; "Answer: You can enable this setting on the For Commissioner > Setup > General Add/Drop Setup and choose the option: "Prevent Owners From Making FCFS Waivers/Free Agent Moves Between Kickoff of that player's game and the end of the last game of the week?" ) -- Houston played Thursday. I, knowing fuller was out and adding him based on the Wednesday drop, didn't care and tried to add him. Because his team had already played this week, he is/was still locked, and thus I was unable to add him. Our rules don't say anything about preventing players from being added via FAAB after their game that week has been played. It's not a big deal either way if that's an unwritten rule or whatever, but I'd be pretty certain that's the behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:...and I'm still gonna lose, because apparently jaquizz and jalen are better than bell and miller At least they outperformed starting RB Jordan Howard. Who didn't quite manage 1 yard per carry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
I'm looking to upgrade my defense. I have some combination of picks/rookies/starters available. Given current roster depths/etc, it is harder for defense to be as much value above replacement as top tier offensive players with like 5 exceptions, though. Send me your thoughts!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I don't remember when the first Bradford q sign went up, but I thought he was starting until he didn't personally. I would maybe say FCFS (haven't played only, $2 minbid) might be reasonable between Sat and Mon kickoff for last minute " not playing" news. So, if you're starting trubisky, those d up for sale?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:It's on the transaction page clear as day right? Yeah, but knowing the actual 'current' totals is hard. Cool to be able to see what everyone has.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't feel strongly one way or another on that. I remember a year or two ago wanting to stash more guys, but not since then. You still have to pay half their salaries, so there's still a cost for that. I also don't have deep thoughts about it. In team McLean's case, it looks like there are three guys on his team on IR and a bunch of Qs. He'll have to drop some players at the end of the season to be cap compliant before thinking about the draft. You've still got 5 RBs and 6 non IR WR on your roster. That feels like a good amount of space for stashing, maybe? Especially since some of your roster will have to go for cap reasons? I'm not sure if a small bench is a bad thing, because it does make stash decisions harder for roster players? In fact, one might look at the roster and say it would be better to protect taxi squad players in some way (e.g. If stolen, you get a pick back from the same round) as squad theft generally has had a bigger impact thus far, and everyone starts with three on the squad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We could potentially add IR slots and remove a regular bench slot to balance that? Also, I know Spermy is in favor of multiyear taxi squads - that is, once someone is on taxi, you can leave them there past their rookie year - and we can certainly consider compensatory picks from taxi theft, too. I'd not be a fan of removing bench space. If we wanted to add IR slots I would suggest also adding starting slots - another idp or off flex, rather than decreasing bench size. It has a similar outcome, but doesn't force drops. That said, I still don't see much of a reason to expand IR at this point. Only enough room to stash two stars there seems ok? Use your bench to stash a long term value after that instead of some other lottery ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You need a bench slot, because MFL doesn't let you move a player directly to a taxi squad. However, per our "soft cap" rules, you don't need to clear cap space for a player you're transiting to your squad. Coullllllld let people put ineligible rookies on squad temporarily for the trade? Though that would be a hassle to enforce.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:gurley I hadn't really expected his performance so far this season. But.. Yikes. Even with the unsustainable TD rate, he's posting decent to good yardage / reception numbers. Disappointed that I didn't throw in garcon. I had thought hard about it because I'm worried about Howard, but didn't trust Hoyer Zauper fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I suspect fumble recoveries are scoring six points: Was that not intentional? I would assume that fumbles and int's would have the same value
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I've updated the scoring. I believe it can take a while to propagate back through previous matches? Hopefully it does it automatically. If not, I'll go back and manually adjust scores, which will probably take like an hour so I'd like to avoid it but it's not a huge deal. If you look at a given players week scoring, it's correct... But if you look at the players scoring history (and team pf, schedule) it still reflects the old values.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:MFL was made by numbers nerds. And not a single UI guy. Like, negative UI guys. I operate a 15+ year old browser game with a UI that old... And it's still better than theirs. Penalties and penalty yards would be awesome for next year. Though it sucks you can't be rewarded for drawing one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Stealing Jamaal Williams.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So, Williams is a Packer, so I guess you're stealing him for week 5? While ash ketchum obviously cannot start him this weekend, the 48hr response time & 72hr limit before the player's game I guess just means verbally committing to starting him next week. And, this highlights that a player on a taxi squad is only safe from theft within that 72 hours plus their actual game time, and I don't think MFL prohibits taxi squad moves during a players' game time. quote:This does mean you can temporarily stash a player on taxi late on friday night (if they're playing sunday or monday) in order to play saturday waivers with the freed-up bench slot, you just have to remember to get them off taxi by the end of their game. It is not a gamble, the rules are very explicit, and Jamaal Williams currently has no injury status: quote:if, after a steal attempt is initiated, the player being stolen is injured (reported as questionable, doubtful, out, placed on IR), suspended (placed on S), or dropped to waivers/free agency by their owning NFL team, either owner may back out and restore the status quo. That means the stealing owner can cancel their steal attempt - the player stays with the original owner There's also nothing in the rules about 72 hours being when the transfer happens, which is a bit weird.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Swarmin Swedes posted:Well played, I ll start him As I understand it, you can back out of starting him if / when his status officially changes, at which point I'd have to decide if I wanted to start him. Or just always start him to remove the risk!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:I was not on my FF game this week. I knew Geronimo was getting some snaps and didn't put in a bid anywhere. I thought about it, but Adams has initial positive health stuff, and if he's back Geronimo isn't getting snaps. Happier with Jones, even at late first pricing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Bad week for my team. Ty goes down with a rib injury (thankfully sounds less bad than it may have been), Julio exits with a hip injury and doesn't return.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Sounds like Cook is out for the year. Anyone interested in McKinnon?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Looking like murray and McKinnon are in about a 50/50 timeshare, with McKinnon getting the passing downs and goal line downs. Any interest in him?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 04:17
|
|