|
MarquisDeCarabas posted:I agree with having six teams make the playoffs. Would you still have weeks 14-16 be the playoffs with the 1st and 2nd seed having byes in week 14? A little late to the party but here's another option for a 12-team league. This is how my dynasty league is organized: 3 divisions of 4 teams each. 13-week regular season. Each team plays their division rivals twice (=6 games) plus they play all but one of the non-division teams once each (=7 games). (change which one team each team doesn't play from one year to the next, so that over the course of 8 years, it cycles around.) In week 14, the winners of each of the three divisions get a bye. Two wildcard teams determined by best overall record play one another in the wildcard match. If you have a consolation bracket, it also starts week 14. Week 15, top seeded division champ plays the winner of the wildcard match, the other two division champs play each other. Week 16, two winners of the previous week play for 1st and 2nd place. Losers from the previous week play one another for 3rd and 4th place. Consolation bracket final match plays, which potentially gets you a consolation bracket winner. In our league, consolation bracket winner wins a small prize. I'm a big proponent of making consolation bracket games meaningful, because in a dynasty or keeper league it's important to discourage teams from deliberately throwing matches late in the season once they know they're out of the playoffs, in order to secure better drafting spots or something. If you don't have meaningful play through the playoff weeks, you should enforce some kind of trade deadline that happens before playoffs, so that playoff contenders can't grab good players off of eliminated teams. In addition to consolation brackets, you can have weekly contests at the end of the season, weeks 14-16. For example, you could give a small prize each week to the team that is out of the playoffs that earns the most fantasy points that week. Anything to keep people engaged and not checking out once they're eliminated is good. The above system I described has the disadvantage that one team pairing doesn't play one another; but, it makes the divisions meaningful (play each div rival twice, winning a div is an automatic pass to the semifinals), means you don't have to run the final championship match during week 17 (when many NFL teams sit their studs), and makes for larger divisions (I think 4 three-team divisions is a little silly).
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Actually, when a team has a crappy o-line and especially a backup QB playing, that's good for TE production. They play more snaps to add protection and bolster the OL, and they're a useful quick checkdown option. I have no opinion about whether Allen is a great TE option or not, but I don't buy the argument that because the Colts fed TEs a lot last year while having a bad OL and a backup QB, that means the Colts will feed even more looks to TEs with a better OL and with Luck at the helm. The rest of the argument seems OK, but I think at best the TE situation in Indy is a little uncertain and there's downside risk to any Indy TE.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:I'm not expecting more, I'm more or less expecting the same amount of targets, if not slightly fewer, just for Allen to be receiving them at the same clip, if not better, than Fleener did last year. I don't think that's a bad risk to take. OK yeah, that makes sense. I probably misunderstood what you were trying to say.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Teams are cutting now and there are competent backup QBs to be had. Vikes will surely pick one up. Mark Sanchez? Christian Ponder, maybe? Then again Zach Mettenberger is also available, so things could get worse.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Rashad Jennings for a round 16 pick isn't unreasonable. He is nominally RB1 in New York and is therefore worth rostering, and his ADP is #76 overall so that's a bargain. Cam is well worth keeping. Rivers in 10th is a cheap backup QB that you won't feel bad about dropping, and it'll be nice going into the draft with both your starter and backup locked up, plus a backup/flexible RB3 in place. I don't mind the John Brown pick and I think Olsen tends to get overshadowed by Gronk but he's a very good TE to own, although 4th round is pushing it a bit for him. Ingram as a 1st round keeper I don't like at all. If you already have Jennings cheap, you need that first round pick to help yourself to a 1st-roundable WR, and a bunch of those are going to be kept by other teams. I think Ingram is sharing the RB role this year as well, with both Spiller and Hightower on the roster, and it's a pass-first offense to boot. Let Ingram go and draft the best WR on the board with your first pick.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:waiver wire keepers take up your bottom round selection, So that's explicitly covered. Jennings costs a last-round pick.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
I was kind of going back and forth on it. I think it's borderline. In a keeper league where most teams will keep 4 players, everyone's ADP probably goes up a little. And he's probably the second or third TE in the league, behind Gronk and then maybe Kelce. (Some folks might argue Reed ahead of him too, but I personally don't think so - I think Washington is severely over-hyped this year and still has to prove its a team that can win games.) Olsen's ADP is #43, which is 4th round. If you like Olsen and only have three other keepers you feel strongly about, it's not a horrible pick. But yeah, you could certainly wait on TE and take WR/RB depth there instead. My opinion on Reed is probably unpopular. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
I said competent backup. Ponder is a league veteran who can hold a clipboard like nobody's business; he understands the game, knows playbooks, etc. He is not and never will be good enough for a team to want him as their starting QB, but if you're the Vikings and you are looking at your QB options, a guy like Ponder suddenly starts being pretty attractive. Regardless, any team that loses their starting QB for at least half a season pretty much has to add a QB to the roster, because you never want to be going into a game without backup at the position.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:No he does not. Then who? Go on, list the QBs available in the league that the Vikings would consider bringing in and adding to the roster.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
MrSargent posted:Would anyone drop either of these two receivers to pick up Spencer Ware in Half PPR? I am very RB-needy but not sure if that is worth it. I could drop Kamar Aiken or Sterling Shepard. I think it depends on who your starting WR and RBs are. Like, you're talking about dropping a backup WR to pick up a backup RB, so it matters how much each player is likely to wind up being a starter for you later in the season.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I actually said Mark Sanchez:Leperflesh posted:Teams are cutting now and there are competent backup QBs to be had. Vikes will surely pick one up. Mark Sanchez? Christian Ponder, maybe? LmaoTheKid posted:They should try to trade for McCown. The Browns are starting RGIII. I think they'd be dumb to trade away McCown (which means maybe they'll do it) but what would they want for him? More draft picks? They already have all the draft picks. And who are they going to get to be their backup behind RGIII if they trade away McCown? Cody Kessler does not cut it. It makes little sense for any team to trade away their good backup QB. Most teams roster three QBs and the only ones they're gonna trade away is their #3, at best. A few teams have 4, and even then, they're only trading their #2 if their #3 is good enough and they're desperate at some other position and getting a good option to fill it. So that means Sanchez, Mettenberger.... and maybe Ponder. Christian Ponder is not a good QB but you guys are acting like he wouldn't be a reasonable backup for Shaun Hill. A man who, in 9 games for the Rams in 2014, threw a grand total of 8 touchdowns... and 7 interceptions, with 1 rushing TD. 63.3% passing reception rate. Compare to Ponder's 2013 season with the Vikings; in 9 games, 7 passing TDs and 9 interceptions, with 4 rushing tds. 63.6% passing reception rate. Those are strikingly similar records. If the Vikings can get Sanchez, they should get him. If they can somehow get McCown, absolutely. But if not? Ponder is a very reasonable guy to slot in behind Shaun Hill. e. I mean. Ponder has four years with the Vikings. He knows the playbook, and that's not trivial. He could show up and start handing the ball to AP immediately. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
If Gordon stays clean he's worth a 2nd round pick. But there's pretty drat good odds he can't stay off the weed and the next time he gets caught, his NFL career is clearly over. So what do you do with a guy who has huge upside but infinite downside? When do you draft him? In my book, you draft him no higher than a pick level at which you can afford to lose that player and have to drop him at any point. E.g., after all of your WR and RB starting slots are full. In a league with RB/RB/WR/WR/FLEX that means sixth round or later, and if a good QB is there in the sixth, I'm taking him over Brown.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:If the Vikings signed Christian Ponder there would be passive-aggressive riots in the streets I may not have realized the degree to which the man is hated in Minnesota. But nobody should like Shaun Hill better.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I forgot about Hoyer. I think he's nominally a better option than Ponder, although as I said, Ponder obviously knows the playbook, and that's not nothing. Teemu Pokemon posted:The Vikings are an inevitable whirlpool of dysfunction spiraling into the undertow of despair. Nothing they do matters. They are nihilism incarnate. Do not waste breath prognosticating on the shuffling of their deck chairs and just stop drafting their players like you should've been doing since 2006 I think you said Vikings but what you meant to say was Browns, because Adrian Peterson exists, but the browns are untouchables.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Is there a list somewhere of rookies who will definitely or very probably make the final cuts... perhaps ranked by ADP or fantasy value or probability of getting through the cuts? I want something like that to help prep for a dynasty rookie/free agent draft: that is, year 2 of a dynasty league with a short rookie/free agent draft to fill whatever empty slots (and a three-man taxi squad) each team happens to have open.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Reik posted:In ESPN, how do I set which players make it to the playoffs? I run a 12-team league with 2 divisions and I want the division champions + next 4 best records to make it in, with the division champions getting the first round bye. It's set to 6 players making it to playoffs now, does it default to division champs + 4, or top 2 from each divisions + 2? It's probably not going to do it right, but that's OK because you can manually set up the entire championship bracket yourself. Wait till your regular season is done and then just edit the postseason yourself and put the teams and brackets how you want them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
The theory out of Miami was that Miller didn't have the endurance to handle bellcow duty + lots of touches all year. That theory was never tested, though. I like Miller a lot this year but I think he's riskier than people seem to be willing to admit. Not just the ordinary risk of injury for a bellcow RB (which is high), but the risk of running out of gas at the end of the regular season when fantasy is in playoffs, and the risks correlated with Texans being a Bad Team in general. I have Miller on my dynasty team and am OK with him costing me $47 towards my cap, but... just OK, and I have a lot of trepidation about that. In a redraft league I'd be looking to him at the end of the first round, but I'd take Charles over him for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Sproles But don't handcuff an Eagle this year, yeesh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Samu posted:Just chiming in to insult? A statement that your 11 picks were not that good is not an insult, it's an opinion, and a reasonable one at that. It is useful to get opinions on your draft so that you can draft better next year.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Carson Palmer.  I dunno I just wind up with him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
It means you're a chubby chaser. It's OK, nothing wrong with that. Just own it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Vargo posted:I don't think you should roster any Eagles at this point, tbh. Fletcher Cox is totally rosterable, and there's nothing particularly wrong with Caleb Sturgis, I don't think?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
No, not at all. The kind of vibe I get from Crabtree is that he's done pretty well with a series of inaccurate and poor quarterbacks and offenses, and now he's finally on a pretty decent offense with a pretty decent quarterback. He is a solid option in fantasy football, startable in most formats as a FLEX option, and well worth his ADP of ~77 overall (~36th WR off the board).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Yesterday I felt like I hadn't drafted enough so I drafted two times on public ESPN leagues; one auction and one snake ppr. What is wrong with me, goddamn. Not mock drafts, mind you; those free leagues. I'm now playing fantasy football with pubbies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
ColdBlooded posted:am I crazy for wanting to drop Thomas instead of McKinnon? There's no need to roster a backup tight end, especially in a 10-team league. By the time your bye rolls around you'll have someone you can drop, including possibly your starting tight end because every year there's like four random tight ends who suddenly break out and have big seasons. e. Drop Thomas now. Wait till week 8 (Reed's bye) and then either trade him to someone stupid, or just straight up drop him for a producing TE who already had their bye week. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
People need to understand that lopsided trades aren't collusion and should be allowed. Perfectly "even" trades are very rare anyway. A trade is legit if both sides honestly believe that the trade benefits them in some way. And they're the only ones capable of judging that. A collusive trade is one where the two sides are conspiring against a third party, or conspiring to throw the results off. For example, if party A is helping party B to beat party C, a rival, despite Party A actually losing out in the trade itself. Another example is where party A has decided he's no longer in playoff contention (or is eliminated from playoffs) and gives his best players to his buddy, party B. Simply making a poor trade has to be OK. Hell, NFL teams do it constantly! The only alternative is to have almost no trading at all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Both ESPN and Yahoo (and I think NFL as well) penalize the D/ST for all points scored against their team, even if the D/ST wasn't on the field, and there is no way to turn that off. The only way to manage it is if you're willing, as a commissioner, to keep track of every pick 6 each week and then manually adjust the scoring to compensate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:I haven't played on Yahoo in at least 4 years, but I seem to remember some discussion about this earlier this year and someone saying that Yahoo didn't count defensive TDs against the opposing D/ST. My mistake, yeah they're right. I think we bitched about it in 2013 and then they fixed it the next year? Maybe. Last year the only Yahoo league I was in, was the all-IDP league. IDP is superior anyway, everyone should do that and then this won't matter. Also if this is your only beef with ESPN, don't go to Yahoo, because Yahoo's interface is infuriating to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Week 1 Start/Sit Thread: Don't sit your studs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I think you guys all need to remember that most people who play fantasy football do so very casually, do not post on forums about fantasy football, and are idiots. You don't want to make an insulting offer to someone, but on the other hand... there are idiots, and they exist to be taken advantage of in trades. The other thing is, not everyone "just drafted." Some leagues draft stupidly early. It's entirely possible some jamaal charles owners out there drafted him in August thinking he'd be 100% by week 1, and are now kind of feeling uneasy about him. And by the same token, some people are stupidly enthusiastic about untested rookies, like Sterling Shepard. I'm not saying even an idiot would take such a trade straight-up... but some people don't understand why it's a bad idea to trade a stud for two or three non-stud players. And I'll just reiterate because it really bears repeating: A lot of fantasy football players are loving idiots For exactly this same reason, you shouldn't be super insulted when someone offers you a really bad trade. Maybe they think you're an idiot, and yeah that's insulting, but also maybe they're the idiot and they just don't understand why their offer is so goddamn stupid. For example, Vargo here is probably not an idiot, he's just new to fantasy football. If he offered you T.Y HIlton for your Charles, you shouldn't be mad at him, you should just think "oh, this guy is a total newb, how cute" and then maybe make a counter-offer he might consider. Professor Moriarty posted:I'll never understand the rationale behind offering to trade someone with the same position as the guy being asked for. Like, this just means they don't understand. A lot of fantasy football players pick their players based on gutfeels and who they like. For all that guy knows, you changed your mind and wanted pocket hamster more than Miller. He doesn't know or understand that Miller is currently considered a higher pick, and he also doesn't know or understand that since you undoubtedly drafted Miller before Martin, that strongly suggests that you didn't want Martin over Miller. But... I've seen a guy who changed his mind constantly about who he liked from one day to the next, and he probably didn't quite understand that other people don't do that. Cervixalot posted:Week 1 is when everything comes crashing down in terms of projection and hype once we see what new coordinators/coaches/free agents do in terms of scheme, roles and production. This is largely true but just a reminder: last year, week 1, the San Francisco 49ers dominated the Vikings, 20 to 3. Everyone knew their defense had been gutted in the off-season, and yet, here they were, holding what was supposed to be a pretty good team, to one field goal! The niners went on to a 5-11 season, while the Vikings went 11-5. My point here is, the first week can also be wildly misleading. A lot of players are rusty, teams don't have much useful tape on their opponents yet, rookies haven't gotten their feet yet, all kinds of poo poo is still up in the air. Don't read too much into what happens week 1. I think a big common mistake fantasy football players make, is dropping decent guys after week 1 because of bad performance or low usage. Get ready for a lot of your players to underperform week 1, and don't panic when that happens.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Also, spending a year recovering from an injury (or being suspended) actually reduces the amount of wear and tear a player takes over a career. Like, that's a year of rest, you know? Obviously with the injury there's a conditioning question, but Charles has already proven in the past that he comes back from a long-term injury recovery in good condition, so I don't think that's in question now. To me the more pressing issue is that Ware has proven he's a very good running back, and given Charles' value to the team, Andy Reid has a strong incentive to start reducing Charles' overall snaps. Reid might not do that, but if he does, Charles could drop in value. Still an RB1 I think, but maybe more like "somewhere in the top 12" than "somewhere in the top four" like he has been when healthy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Is Vance McDonald a legitimate flier for week 1 if your TE doesn't start? Cook, Walford both gone and Rudolph scares me. Any under the radar guys I should be worried about? It appears my league likes their back up tight ends more than I do. McDonald is a reasonable flier, yeah. It's Gabbert, who is bad, but McDonald is a safety net for him, and that's good; and, it's the Rams, so even the niners have a shot at winning the game. I mean, you could wind up with a 0, that's the floor here, but I think reasonable he should get like four to six catches and it's possible he could get an end zone target.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Well with all this Rawls nonsense, I'm starting to feel fairly miffed about taking him as an RB2. Not really even worth a flex play this week. What the hell? Coming off an injury and cmike has made big strides, and it's Miami. Carrol putting Rawls on a snap count isn't that surprising. Rawls is still gonna have a great year, don't panic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
I've got Houston D/ST. OK with streaming. Drop for any of these? (in order by NFL.com's projections this week (LOL)) Colts @ Den Bears v Phi Lions v Ten Bucs @ Ari Chargers v. Jax Falcons @ Oak I think I took Houston thinking I'd keep them, but I'm not loving that decision now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Teeter posted:Are the Pats required to update an injury report on Gronk by any time today? I need to put in a waiver bid before tomorrow if I'm going to get a backup, but because he's currently Q and not OUT I can't move him to IR in order to grab a replacement. Dump Funchess, you are not losing anything by doing so. If you wind up not needing another TE, you can dump your just-grabbed TE for whoever this thread is drooling over on Tuesday.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Who actually makes the play calls, the OC or the head coach? I always see the head coach holding the playbook and poo poo on the sidelines so I thought the OC just sort of assisted or recommended plays? Or is it different for every team?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Tiptoes posted:Rex Ryan literally knows nothing about the offensive side of football. I believe you, but I also don't understand how any team owner or GM could ever tolerate this kind of situation. How can you possibly hire a head coach that doesn't understand both sides of the game of football? (Or, ok, all three, if you count special teams as separate.) I guess the answer is "this is a big part of why the Bills suck."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
ty looked like bad on a bad team today so yes, that is too much
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Packers are trying out C.J. Spiller
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
I told my league I'm looking to pick up some kind of short-term RB help and was willing to trade away Watkins or Emmanuel Sanders. Got two trade offers on my desk right now: My Sanders for his James White or My Watkins for his Justin Forsett + Eddie Royal. (This trade I'd have to drop someone, probably Bilal Powell.) I have Le'Veon Bell stashed, and I have Doug Martin on my bench, so I'm looking at starting DeAngelo Williams and (gulp) Fozzy Whittaker this week. And I've gone 0-2 already. I'm also carrying two tight ends now: I just benched Gates for Jordan Cameron, ugh. The waivers are absolutely picked clean in this 14-team PPR league. I don't love either of these trades, but I like Royal's situation so far. Is Sanders really going to keep being ignored by the Denver passing game? Am I right in thinking Watkins is the guy to sell, even with a gimpy foot, if it gets me a couple weeks of startable RB production? My other WRs are Jordan Matthews, Sterling Shepard, Victor Cruz, Will Fuller, and we have two flex slots: one WR/RB and one WR/TE, so this is 14 teams all of which can start as many as four WRs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 03:33
|
|