I Paid What For Who? League Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Armchair Quarterback > I Paid What For Who? League Thread

«‹›10 »

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Leperflesh posted:

You have 72 hours to make the decision, and then you'll have to promote him to your bench and start him in his next game. That's enough time to do Wednesday waivers before you move him off taxi.

You should be able to drop Turbin now?

"FRANCHISE OWNERS DO NOT HAVE PLAYER DROP RIGHTS IN THIS LEAGUE"

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 23:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 20:09

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I didn't touch anything. I was able to submit waiver claims with him if I wanted but wasn't able to drop him outright. Maybe my phone is just being screwy?

e: ok gonna try now

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 23:49

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Ok whatever you did worked I'm good now

Now...If you stealin bitches wanna trade for Carson...... :unsmigghh:

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 23:56

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

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.

I'm interested

Zauper posted:

I'd trade for a vet lb.

Mosely and Timmons are both available I saw your PM, I haven't had a chance to respond yet

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 13:03

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 23:06

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

rebuild my rear end :smuggo:

Flacco is available if anyone wants him

# ¿ Sep 19, 2017 18:21

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Leperflesh posted:

Yeah if Teemu and you agree, I'm turning off the "can't submit an incomplete lineup" thing. There's nothing in our rules about it.

I'm fine with this but I think in the off-season we should revisit the rules just to cover any deliberate tanking if there isn't a rule already (Not that I think anyone would actually do it, but there should probably be something about it anyway? Or maybe I'm just being stupid and creating more work)

# ¿ Sep 19, 2017 21:48

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

My team is terrible at tanking

# ¿ Oct 3, 2017 12:21

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Just assume everyone has traded me all the picks always

# ¿ Oct 5, 2017 02:25

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Yeah that's good

Bloody 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

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I'm not really good at tanking

# ¿ Oct 15, 2017 22:32

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

u know what's really funny

if we played each other each week we'd be 3-3 and ur tryin 2 win :kiddo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7reeeApqWo

# ¿ Oct 18, 2017 03:05

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I now return you to your regularly scheduled nerdery

# ¿ Oct 18, 2017 03:07

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I have some good IDPs if people are looking. Mosely, Neal, Jones, and Vaccaro are kinda pointless when I can only start 3 at most of I'm including Jack

# ¿ Oct 21, 2017 21:26

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

vaccaro over neal was a mistake

# ¿ Nov 7, 2017 02:00

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Zauper posted:

Lots of poo poo talk from a guy who hasn't beat a single team with a winning record...

I suppose there are only 4 teams with a winning record, but you lost to me and McLean, and beat the two bottom teams. You beating the 0-6 Chefs isn't exactly a surprise.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2017 06:07

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Could have a 4 way tie for 1st with those teams all within 50 or so points of each other

# ¿ Nov 12, 2017 18:31

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

man if y'all need IDPs i got plenty

# ¿ Nov 20, 2017 03:47

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I would like to potentially see something where we keep divisions, but change to a type of schedule where you play a regular matchup and then a second game against the league average for the week. Don't know if MFL supports that, but I've heard that used in some leagues to kinda counteract the randomness of fantasy while still maintaining the things that make dynasty league/divisions/year-to-year/non-roto interesting. That would be my take on it if you'd want to consider that a formal proposal

Zauper posted:

1017 wins his division if he wins. (SBH would need to outscore by 200ish to take the tiebreaker).

man getting a poo poo avalanche of points dropped on me late Sunday really sucks rear end. I checked my team a hour or two before MNF expecting to be up or close and welp. Managing to snag a bye in a first year rebuild would've been pretty lol

Spermy Smurf posted:

I think we should redo playoff seeding next year. Lose six games in a row and get eliminated? It's kind of bullshit if you ask me.

sux2suck

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Nov 30, 2017

# ¿ Nov 30, 2017 01:09

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Zauper posted:

Scoring
Overall, I've been pretty happy with scoring. Only thing that sucks is how variable the scoring seems to be for DL, just chasing big games. DB and LB seem fairly balanced.

I've been playing IDP leagues with dedicated DL slots for like 15 years and imo that's just how DLs are and I don't think there's a way to fix that unless you could make tackles for DLs worth more than what LB/DB tackles are worth

# ¿ Dec 1, 2017 23:52

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I think a combo of nerfing sack points while adding QB hits/hurries and making DL tackles worth more than LB/DB would go a long way toward making DL a more consistently scored position

# ¿ Dec 2, 2017 17:08

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I would say so, yeah. Maybe then we might have to make their TFL worth slightly less than that of a LB/DB, but I don't think that would be entirely necessary. They are more likely to get TFLs, but those don't happen nearly as frequently as regular tackles. The whole idea behind making their tackles worth more is that the average DL only gets like 2-4 of them a game vs. 5-7 for a LB or 3-5 for a DB with PD on top of that

# ¿ Dec 3, 2017 15:58

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I think for the purposes of DL compared to the other IDP it does make sense though, otherwise DL are basically just kickers and are there to win someone a week randomly when they go off for 20+ points. Either they should be more in line with LB/DB w/r/t consistency, or they shouldn't be mandatory

I think if you really want to get wacky you could have all IDP scoring be tiered relative to position. Like LB tackles would be the baseline, DB tackles would be next, then DL tackles would be worth the most. DBs would get the most points for a sack, LB the next, and DLs the least. DBs get the least for PD, then DLs, then LBs, DBs get the baseline for INTs, LBs get the next highest, and DLs higher still. DLs get the baseline for TFL, then LBs, then DBs the most. Then things like FF/FR, TD, and safeties would stay the same.

That to me would be cool but would also be incredibly overboard and I'm not sure if even goons are that autistic

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Dec 3, 2017

# ¿ Dec 3, 2017 17:13

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

who put me in the division with the buzzsaw so I couldn't bullshit my way to a division win in a rebuilding year :colbert:

# ¿ Dec 4, 2017 09:48

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Zauper posted:

While I agree with this -- that reducing extreme randomness -- is desirable, I'm not sure that's possible for the DL positions. The 'top' DL cap out at around 4 tackles per week, with 2 of those being sacks. Even the top DL of the season this far (by PPG) has a 0 point week without being injured. Top in overall points has a 1.5 and a 3 point week. Given the frequency of interactions, I don't think it's possible to bring them in line with LB/DB in consistency (and DB really only get consistency for those DB that generate high tackle volumes -- PD and int dependent DB are much more variable, and DB are generally more variable than LB).

To some extent, DL are the red headed stepchildren of IDP scoring the same way TEs are of offensive scoring. They're not nearly as consistent as the other positions, and much more big play dependent (TEs are TD dependent largely, DL are sack dependent). I don't think it's possible to fix DL - or frankly TE - via scoring changes. Even something like what leper mentioned, giving TE a big bump for first downs acquired, doesn't fix TE because they're still largely big play dependent and you're counting on small volume occurrences.

I guess, in spite of bringing up my dislike for DL myself, I'd vote to either just remove the position or leave its scoring alone instead of the changes proposed thus far. This week I'm literally just seeing what it looks like to stream DL vs high sack allowing offenses to see if it works.

I out drinking at 4 am on a Sunday so I can't give this post the entire attention it deserves, and I will later, but at first blush my instinct is that there are ways to accomplish that positional parity but they are likely a bit convoluted and we're better served by eliminating DL and adding a D flex (or preferably two so people have reason to start DLs if the FA pool is shallow)

# ¿ Dec 4, 2017 10:29

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Making the playoffs in year one of a rebuild is confusing and muddying my ~~***process***~~

# ¿ Dec 6, 2017 06:10

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Zauper posted:

So... anyone want to sell me some top tier IDP players? I don't have much in the way of picks, but I have some other resources I'm willing to move.

I have IDPs I'm willing to move pretty much all of them except maybe Jack and Bruckner but I could probably be convinced

# ¿ Dec 8, 2017 04:31

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Yeah I knew I was going to get demolished and I had a very busy weekend so it really wasn't on my mind until like 3pm so I'm not really that twisted about it

e: rebuilding year :monar:

1017 is the team of destiny

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Dec 21, 2017

# ¿ Dec 21, 2017 05:32

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I'm not going anywhere, especially since my rebuild seems a little ahead of schedule I'm sure I'll be all tilted out for at least 3-5 years trying to win in this window

e: I think I might even be paid for 2018 anyway since I've made trades with futures?

# ¿ Dec 27, 2017 23:09

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

If we just add the IDP (flex preferred) but not a bench slot, I think the cap is fine as is, if we add a bench slot then I think the cap going up is probably a good idea. We currently have about $10/player in cap space so that would be a good place to start I think. $260 is a weird number and $275 makes my autism happy and puts the demons to sleep, but $25 might be too much

# ¿ Dec 28, 2017 16:29

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

The hangout chat we had worked for me. I work from 9 to ~5:30 eastern but can check my phone intermittently during that time (usually around 1:30)

# ¿ Jun 15, 2018 00:10

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I'm definitely open to trade, i just have no idea if i actually have anything that anyone would want. i have a few decent IDPs I guess and maybe a WR

# ¿ Jul 13, 2018 13:15

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Zauper posted:

Looking to move Howard for high-end IDP starters and/or good cost controlled WR.

Also willing to move my TS eligible kids (trent taylor, mack hollins, breida, ekeler, henderson, chad williams), or Lee.

i for sure have IDPs and i also think someone offered me a trade for an IDP already like a week ago and I went to look at it and then got completely distracted sorry

# ¿ Jul 19, 2018 23:50

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

rookie draft first makes infinitely more sense at the very least from a cap management and compliance standpoint. draft picks have set value, you know exactly how much each pick you can make will cost you. Values in an FA draft are unpredictable and there's no way of knowing how much you will spend. If you have a roster trimming/trading period then a rookie draft, you go into FA with your payroll completely set for the season minus whatever you want to spend on FAs and you'll know exactly how many dollars you have in cap room

e: for the record if we want to push for a vote then let's vote but I do feel very strongly that rookie then FA is better than FA than rookie and that was one of the main things i personally pushed for in our commissioners' "meeting"

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jul 27, 2018

# ¿ Jul 27, 2018 13:55

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Spermy Smurf posted:

Rookies are a set payscale so I'm not sure why you can't just do the math of adding up your draft pick prices.

Yeah that's my point. You know exactly how much you could and would be willing to spend per player before you get there whereas there's no way of knowing that entering the FA period which is why it behooves you to not have to account for more money you may or may not need later

# ¿ Jul 28, 2018 00:08

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

If I have 60 dollars in space and I have draft picks that, should I choose to use them, will total 35 in salary. I know for a fact I can spend 25 dollars in free agency plus any additional space from any cuts I'd like to make and shuttling salary to the taxi squad

if i have 60 dollars in cap space entering a free agent draft, I have no idea how things will break and there may be players available for a price I'm willing to pay that i did not anticipate, but now I also have to factor in squirreling money away for the rookie draft, that I might not even use on top of that! makes it a lot more difficult to get in on those players

I really have trouble understanding why anyone would want to enter an auction draft without a clear amount of cap space available. i don't want to have to do extra math

i just feel like doing FA first is throwing in extra variables for no reason whatsoever

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jul 28, 2018

# ¿ Jul 28, 2018 00:54

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

Spermy Smurf posted:

I admit that I dont understand anyones logic on rookies and being surprised by a salary that is written in our rules. That's odd to me.

I am arguing for the sake of arguing here, if I can understand your mindset (Teemu and I have same mindset with completely different results) then maybe I can understand where you are coming from. We haven't done rookie before FA before and that (I thought) was by design.

I really dont care which goes first but if we are going to slowdraft one of these things its gotta be soon.

I would rather focus on "oh poo poo do we have to slow draft like we have never done before"

Not that I'm going to be surprised, it's actually the opposite. Since I for all intents and purposes know what I'm going to spend in the rookie draft, it makes more sense to me to first address the variable that I can somewhat control rather than jumping right to the more unpredictable thing that could completely change my strategies in the rookie draft once it's over

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jul 28, 2018

# ¿ Jul 28, 2018 02:04

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I'm obviously team rookies first. as for the draft, I'd prefer live but slow is fine

# ¿ Jul 29, 2018 12:55

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

I can do the 16th I guess as long as I can draft via mobile. I play kickball on thursday nights because I'm a turbonerd and I have a game at 9:15 so like i would need to be done by like 9 ET

e:

Leperflesh posted:

Maybe what we can do is if one of those dates doesn't work for Teemu, we start a slow draft (for rookies) and use the other date for the auction FA draft, and just hope we can burn through the slow draft uh, quickly... and if we get to the 30th and the slow draft isn't done yet, we can finish it live by just getting everyone online and blowing through it.

I don't think this is a terrible idea unless anyone is completey opposed to a slow draft. I prefer live but it's absolutely not a dealbreaker for me, whatever gets us moving along. The only problem i have with a slow rookie draft is how roles of players may change mid draft and someone could get a nice steal should their pick time line up with news updates. Then I guess if we have to we could do FA first but.. how do you do a slow auction draft? I'm sure there are ways but the few I can fathom seem extremely tedious and complicated

Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Aug 1, 2018

# ¿ Aug 1, 2018 05:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 20:09

Teemu Pokemon: Jun 19, 2004; To sign them is my real test

With full no movement clause

If anyone wants any of my LBs that aren't Jones or Jack I'll gladly trade them. Especially looking to move Mosley

# ¿ Aug 2, 2018 22:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Armchair Quarterback > I Paid What For Who? League Thread

«‹›10 »