|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Nov 4, 2008 13:53:36 GMT
A thread here for shooting the shit about next season's flangeball game. My thoughts thus far are as follows : KeepersI feel we should move to three keepers to increase the feeling of ownership for the team and continue to increase the number of choices owners have to make - keep the old guy who helps now, or the young guy who could be good over the long term, that sort of thing. Ideally I'd like the third keeper to be "open" - so that teams can steal your third listed keeper directly before the draft, (not in-season), but right now I can't think of a good compensation for that. No one's going to give up their first round choice to grab someone's third keeper, but giving up a third rounder probably doesn't compensate the targeted team. A second rounder could work, I guess. Injured ReserveNo one has used it yet this season, but I think it's worth keeping around. Squad SizeThere's no surprise when I announce that I'm a big fan of the short bench, but I've heard rumours that that Horn fella doesn't really like it. One idea I've had for a middle ground is to keep the squad size the same but lower the starters by cutting out one WR. So the teams would look like this : 2008 2009 QB QB WR WR WR WR/TE WR/TE TE TE RB/WR RB RB RB K K DEF DEF D D BN BN BN BN BN BN BN This gives you a longer bench and two flex positions without taking more players out of the player pool, enabling the free agent wheeler-dealing to continue. I'll also buff the IDP scoring again to get another step closer to making them a must-have. ---------------------------------------- So, 3 keepers? Yes/No. 3rd keeper somehow stealable? Yes/No and any ideas for how? Changes to the roster without increasing roster size? Yes/No/Ideas? Any other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Nov 4, 2008 14:08:03 GMT
Three keepers: I like the idea of three keepers now that we've had keepers for a little while. If I'm honest, I would see the benefit of four, but that might be too much of a percentage of the overall squad. Like the 3rd keeper/2nd rd pick thing though. It should be favoured to the losing team, yes. How would this be managed though? If more than one manager want my 3rd pick, would I get the option of who I give it to? Also, would you have to choose three different positions?
Roster changes: In all honesty, this isn't as flexible as you think it is.How many managers have gone for a 2nd TE over a WR this season? I toyed with the idea for one week, but didn't in the end. How many managers would seriously consider a 3rd WR rather than a 2nd RB? If you're wanting a RB slot as a flex option it should be against a QB, as they're about as valuable, right?
|
|
|
Post by Boony on Nov 4, 2008 14:08:33 GMT
3 keepers and an extra bench spot to hide a promising youngster sound like great ideas to help us feel as though we have more ownership of the team. I'm in favour of these. Making choices on your keepers keeps us on our toes, though, and so making a third-choice keeper stealable makes good game sense as well. As far as compensation goes, I'm not too experienced with the mechanics, so can't say for sure, but I think a second round pick sounds reasonable. So, in summary, I like your ideas. I'll now stand back and let Horn, Nark, and DC bitch and moan
|
|
|
Post by Boony on Nov 4, 2008 14:10:07 GMT
Oh, and I agree with Moo about the flex positions; this could be resolved by adjusting points gained by the different positions to make them more even...
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Nov 4, 2008 14:14:24 GMT
Roster changes: In all honesty, this isn't as flexible as you think it is.How many managers have gone for a 2nd TE over a WR this season? I toyed with the idea for one week, but didn't in the end. How many managers would seriously consider a 3rd WR rather than a 2nd RB? If you're wanting a RB slot as a flex option it should be against a QB, as they're about as valuable, right? The only flex positions offered by Yahoo are WR/TE and RB/WR, so I'm handcuffed there. Essentially I'd expect 99% of people to play 2 HB, 2 WR 99% of the time, but that one week where everyone's on a bye, 3WR 1HB might be your best choice. It's the flexibility I can offer under Yahoo's restraint. I've been playing two TEs all season, because I kept Gates and went early for Gonzo. I think it has to be a manager decision made in the draft, because you're not going to get a good second TE on free agency unless a rookie explodes or someone gives up on a guy, like Vernon Davis, who then stops acting like a cock. However, if you choose to go two TE in the draft and get two good ones then it allows you to stay out of the receiver clusterfuck in the mid rounds because there are second TEs who are better than certain 3 WRs.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Nov 4, 2008 14:24:02 GMT
Shame there's no QB flex option, I think that would have made more sense. As for 2 TEs, I understand. Gates is essentially a WR anyway, so that's cheating.
|
|
|
Post by elth on Nov 5, 2008 12:38:02 GMT
I'm having trouble envisionaging a scenario where picking up A Running Back off the wire isn't better than slotting in a marginal #3 WR, even around the bye weeks, to be honest. This is the problem with the short bench - there's probably going to be, at any one point in time, a handful of starters and a bunch of decent platoon RBs in the waiver pool because you can't afford to stack them on the bench.
To be honest, I'm perfectly happy with the setup this year, but I'd boost the IDP stats to give an incentive to people who manage their benches around bye weeks. Three keepers is a goer. I'm not sure about this whole "steal your third keeper" idea though - I'm not sure a second rounder is ever going to be good enough compensation. Take my squad - if I hypothetically keep Steve Smith, Drew Brees and Marion Barber, I'm exposing one of my top 20 players and getting a top 50 pick in return.
No freaking thanks.
People should be rewarded for drafting well, not punished. Maybe give anyone whose pick was stolen a priority pick straight after the first round, whilst the person doing the stealing loses their second round pick as suggested. Or, better, bin it entirely and let people lie in the beds they've made for themselves...
You might even get the scenario where people start protecting their #4 or #5 player with the third keeper, because they're going to get a better deal if nobody steals that guy then if they keep their top 3 and get booted down to pick #50 after the Stupidbowl winner steals their #3 guy.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 26, 2009 10:28:39 GMT
*BUMP*
I know this is a bit early for all of this jibbar-jabber, but I was thinking we need to have the old rosters marked somewhere. I can't do it at work, but I'll be willing to do it tonight at home, unless someone beats me to it.
Also, having read this thread again, I noticed that Hornet hadn't commented. I think we all know what he's going to say, of course, but combined with what Elth was saying regarding the 2nd RB/3rd WR thing, it does point to a larger bench. Sure the bottom end of the draft would be a crapshoot, but isn't that going to favour those who know what they're doing as the others will just be a "look at Yahoo rankings" type of pick?
Also, the 3rd keeper steal thing... why can't we offer multiple picks? For instance, the way it is pencilled in at the moment, you'd get a 2nd rounder. If someone wanted my 3rd keeper and there were two people interested, I'd give the player to the 2nd round pick #3 rather than the 2nd round pick #6. But if pick #6 threw in his 4th rounder too, then I'd probably go for that, surely? It would mean I'd lose my last pick in the last round (or be forced to offer that pick) but I'd be happy with that.
It depends on how much each player values that 3rd keeper, I would think.
Also, I might have another person interested in this, if a spare place comes up, or we get a 12th person.
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Feb 26, 2009 10:56:25 GMT
I'm with the original suggestion but without the steal availability. I thought that was only for new joiners in the last round. ie. Boo.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 26, 2009 11:08:45 GMT
It was, but Stu's suggestion at the top is that it is now open for all. Confirmation required, methinks. Also, as per my earlier post, we'd have to think about how to process all these steals and swapping of draft picks. Would it be worth it?
|
|
|
Post by hornet on Feb 26, 2009 11:26:29 GMT
Also, having read this thread again, I noticed that Hornet hadn't commented. I think we all know what he's going to say, of course, but combined with what Elth was saying regarding the 2nd RB/3rd WR thing, it does point to a larger bench. Nah, I realise I'm on my own with the things I don't like about how the league's set up so I'm happy to go along with the (entirely wrong) majority. The only new thing I'd throw in - I'd rather the flex position were WR/RB than WR/TE. WR/RB/TE would be ideal, though.
|
|
|
Post by DC on Feb 26, 2009 12:39:40 GMT
I'm happy with it, although can we rewind it back a year on the stealing players bit?
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 26, 2009 12:53:49 GMT
So you can not be a silly sausage, you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Feb 26, 2009 12:54:10 GMT
The stealing the third keeper was (as it says in the thread title) an idea. We can do that or not and if we can't find a suitable way of losing something appropriate to gain someone else's #3 then we'll leave it out.
|
|
|
Post by DC on Feb 26, 2009 12:55:18 GMT
So you can not be a silly sausage, you mean? I blame Tom Brady's Knee.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bismarck's Electric Donkey on Feb 26, 2009 12:56:13 GMT
The only new thing I'd throw in - I'd rather the flex position were WR/RB than WR/TE. WR/RB/TE would be ideal, though. In the first post I've added a WR/RB to go with the existing WR/TE. I don't think Yahoo does triple-flex positions. -edit- err, "added" - we've shortened the playing roster to (sort of) lengthen the bench in that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 26, 2009 13:20:52 GMT
Stu - in your official capacity as Divots spokesperson, can you please email Yahoo to request an option for a K/DEF flex?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Feb 26, 2009 13:50:35 GMT
Stu - in your official capacity as Divots spokesperson, can you please email Yahoo to request an option for a K/DEF flex? Thanks. Didn't Baz drop put of the league? I don't think it will be needed.
|
|
Fuzzy
Spider Monkey
stop chewing!
Posts: 918
|
Post by Fuzzy on Feb 26, 2009 13:54:21 GMT
I like the ideas presented, but I would like to add one more: A 3 win headstart to a certain Asian so he won't end up like last season
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 26, 2009 14:04:47 GMT
That's silly talk.
Unless I can have four games, natch.
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Feb 26, 2009 14:31:43 GMT
And I have 5 games.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Feb 26, 2009 14:59:08 GMT
The way this is going, Narkle will want eight games and the moral victory.
|
|
|
Post by coffers on Feb 26, 2009 15:05:30 GMT
:thumb:
|
|
|
Post by elth on Feb 26, 2009 15:37:07 GMT
I liked the WR/TE flex, for what it's worth.
I'd prefer to see the same starting players used and going with a 4 man bench if we're that desperate to shut Horn up try new systems. Rewarding the people who take the time to get that ever crucial 11th round pick right seems like a better idea than reducing the amount of starting players to me.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on May 15, 2009 8:18:16 GMT
I've re-read this and like the WR/TE flex, but not so much the RB/WR one.
Three keepers - no stealing.
Change IDP settings so you pretty much have to play one, as there were a few times over the last two seasons that people would rather drop an IDP, just to protect a bye week player. The extra bench space would solve this problem 90% of the time, I would think. THe 10% of the time would be people not paying attention to players drafted and their bye weeks. I've been guilty of the idiocy and the drop IDP thing in the past, so it's not a slight on anyone.
How long until we have a proper "franchise" game going here? I can see this happening in a couple of seasons, but this would have to be agreed at least a year in advance.
|
|