Bill Swerski Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) Not if you require two defenses and two kickers be on the roster, or make WW transactions easy. In Dynasty Wars, I only carry one kicker, Jason Elam. This year, the week before his bye, I picked up Morten Andersen for $2 our of a $70/yr allotment, and Andersen when out and kicked five field goals. Any owner with a pulse should be able to handle this concept. But no, some would rather throw a game than have to deal with the most basic of FF concepts: pay attention, and turn in your best lineup every week. Uh, well, yay for you, I guess. I'd rather play in a well-run, well-set-up, fair league. Peace policy I did play in a well-run, well-set-up league and had quite a bit of fun, despite what your biases suggest. People in my leagues don't throw games. They do what's best for THEIR team and don't give a crap about what owners like you think. FWIW, I've seen very few instances of bye-week players being active because, in the vast majority of cases, it's against the best interest of their teams to do so. And I was above giving a d@mn the few times that it did happen. One way to eliminate all of this without playing Roster Nazi would be to use total points forced or Power Rankings to determine the league winner. That's the best way to give everyone incentive to put out their best squad. Unfortunately, that takes the fun out of head-to-head matchups. Edited October 2, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Allowed, not allowed...why is this even a question? You field a full, active team to be competitive. You wanna be cheap with you waiver $$ then make sure you draft appropriately. If not, don't affect the competitive balance of the league by hoarding your waiver $$. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. There shouldn't need to be a rule on this...it is understood that you field a full, active, competitive team. This is getting to be a regular thing with us. If a league has small rosters with limited FA (ie - bidding purses), a team ought to be able, for a week, start a bye week player if they don't want to drop a starter. It's going to happen to me in week 6 (and weeks 6 & 7 have 6 teams on bye, so it could be a problem in a lot of leagues). I'm in first place right now and am doing really well, so the last thing I want to do is take an intentional 0 in one of my player slots for that week. But that's better than the alternative of dropping a good D, K, or TE and having to dip into the WW pool for a mediocre or worse FA. That's the problem with the small rosters in a league where owners don't make many trades, but I didn't create the problem, so I'll just do what I have to to keep my team intact for as much of the season as possible. A goose egg in one spot for one week is well worth the full-season benefts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 This is getting to be a regular thing with us. If a league has small rosters with limited FA (ie - bidding purses), a team ought to be able, for a week, start a bye week player if they don't want to drop a starter. It's going to happen to me in week 6 (and weeks 6 & 7 have 6 teams on bye, so it could be a problem in a lot of leagues). I'm in first place right now and am doing really well, so the last thing I want to do is take an intentional 0 in one of my player slots for that week. But that's better than the alternative of dropping a good D, K, or TE and having to dip into the WW pool for a mediocre or worse FA. That's the problem with the small rosters in a league where owners don't make many trades, but I didn't create the problem, so I'll just do what I have to to keep my team intact for as much of the season as possible. A goose egg in one spot for one week is well worth the full-season benefts. bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) If a league has small rosters with limited FA (ie - bidding purses), a team ought to be able, for a week, start a bye week player if they don't want to drop a starter. I hear what you are saying. But the Empire league in question has very deep rosters. Everyone can afford to dump a handcuff or #5 WR to pick up a starting DEF. The problem is merely that most DEFs score negative points: they are huge liabilities. So a zero is actually a pretty decent score from your DEF. In fact, if you could average zero points from your DEF each week, you'd probably end up with a top 5 DEF at the end of the year. I've got a win basically locked up this week, except I've still got the Eagles' DEF still to go. If I bench them before tonight's game starts, I win. If I play them, I may lose. What are you supposed to do in a situation like that? Edited October 2, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I hear what you are saying. But the Empire league in question has very deep rosters. Everyone can afford to dump a handcuff or #5 WR to pick up a starting DEF. The problem is merely that most DEFs score negative points: they are huge liabilties. So a zero is actually a pretty decent score from your DEF. In fact, if you could average zero points from your DEF each week, you'd probably end up with a top 5 DEF at the end of the year. I've got a win basically locked up this week, except I've still got the Eagles' DEF still to go. If I bench them, I win. If I play them, I may lose. What are you supposed to do in a situation like that? Change the scoring system? Holy crap, a player that scores 0 points for an entire season sure shouldn't be a top 5 player, regardless of what player (or entity) it is. I understand the idea of relativity in player scoring, but this just seems inherently silly. Good Ds are actually a very good benefit to a team in the NFL, so what is the logic behind the strong negative scoring for Ds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Change the scoring system? Holy crap, a player that scores 0 points for an entire season sure shouldn't be a top 5 player, regardless of what player (or entity) it is. I understand the idea of relativity in player scoring, but this just seems inherently silly. Good Ds are actually a very good benefit to a team in the NFL, so what is the logic behind the strong negative scoring for Ds? Welcome to the Huddle's "perfect scoring system." Many of our league members (myself included) have never used it before; so the DEF aspect came as a big surprise to some. But mid-season scoring overhauls are a dicey proposition, and I'm sure *some* folks (i.e., the ones that actually took the time to understand the scoring rules BEFORE the draft) might feel a little robbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Dynasty leagues = no rules forcing owners to. Owners can't know bye week conflicts years into the future. Nor do you make a team give up a prospect just for a bye week filler player that no one would roster othrwise. Redraft and keeper leagues = I can see a rule forcing the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 But mid-season scoring overhauls are a dicey proposition, and I'm sure *some* folks (i.e., the ones that actually took the time to understand the scoring rules BEFORE the draft) might feel a little robbed. Agreed. You absolutely can't change rules in midseason - that's about as large a taboo as there is in FF, next to collusion. But I find it hard to believe when people were prepping for their drafts that they didn't see Ds from the past 3 years scoring negative numbers in the large predominance. Hell, you can plug your scoring system into the FFLM program in the preseason and have 4 years worth of cheat sheets ready in about 30 minutes for any scoring system that someone's sick little mind could put together, and it doesn't cost a dime to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Change the scoring system? Holy crap, a player that scores 0 points for an entire season sure shouldn't be a top 5 player, regardless of what player (or entity) it is. I understand the idea of relativity in player scoring, but this just seems inherently silly. Good Ds are actually a very good benefit to a team in the NFL, so what is the logic behind the strong negative scoring for Ds? Like Kid Cid said, It's all DMD's fault: The fundamental difference for scoring of fantasy defenses is that we want to mirror the NFL. A defense does not typically score many points, their job is to prevent them. If a defense held an opponent to zero points and minimal yardage, it is an extremely successful game. If a defense allowed 600 yards of offense and 52 points but managed two sacks and an interception, it is unrealistic to award them with points for their effort. What we want defenses to do is to protect the offensive performances from your players. In the rare case, defenses do score and win games but much more likely is that the defense cannot stop their opponent and gives up points allowed to the offense. The margin of victory for a football team is generally the points scored by the offense minus the points allowed by the defense equals the winning (or losing) difference. It should be the same for fantasy football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) I did play in a well-run, well-set-up league and had quite a bit of fun, despite what your biases suggest. People in my leagues don't throw games. They do what's best for THEIR team and don't give a crap about what owners like you think. FWIW, I've seen very few instances of bye-week players being active because, in the vast majority of cases, it's against the best interest of their teams to do so. And I was above giving a d@mn the few times that it did happen. One way to eliminate all of this without playing Roster Nazi would be to use total points forced or Power Rankings to determine the league winner. That's the best way to give everyone incentive to put out their best squad. Unfortunately, that takes the fun out of head-to-head matchups. Who's playing Roster Nazi? Add two more slots to the rosters and designate them for backup kickers and defenses, everything else staying the same. Gets rid of all the BS and doesn't change the makeup of the league. What if, in the name of Roster Liberty, one of the owners just didn't turn in a lineup after the first week, and his lineup just kept rolling over all season--sometimes half the players would be on byes, other times not. You'd kick that owner out of the league, right? For "not being active". For sandbagging the whole league. Because it would be better to have an owner being as competitive as possible. Because it takes two seconds to fill out a lineup . . . and a drop/add or a well-placed last round pick shouldn't be too much to ask to make sure you can actually turn in a valid lineup every week. And if the rules or scoring system means it is too much to ask, then change them. There is no excuse for starting inactive players. Everyone should be facing each others' best lineups, week-in, week-out. Apparently you wouldn't really care if you got screwed out of a playoff appearance, or a championship, because Team A just had to hold on to Brian Finneran instead of picking up a kicker to fill in for one week, and your division rival squeeked out a win that very same week. But I would. To each their own, I guess. Peace policy Edited October 2, 2006 by policyvote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 What if, in the name of Roster Liberty, one of the owners just didn't turn in a lineup after the first week, and his lineup just kept rolling over all season--sometimes half the players would be on byes, other times not. You'd kick that owner out of the league, right? For "not being active". That's an extreme and ridiculous example. Of course that owner would be kicked out. But I'm not talking about owners that are consistenly negligent on a week-to-week basis. I'm talking about the owner who forgets about a bye week once every season or two because he's busy doing stuff with his family. Or the owner who'd rather not drop that hot rookie RB in order to replace his bye-week kicker because it's not good for his franchise in the long run. There is no excuse for starting inactive players. Everyone should be facing each others' best lineups, week-in, week-out. So, I suppose that I should be kicked out of my BOTH for not checking the news 20 minutes before last weekend's early games and leaving Stallworth in my lineup? And I supose that I should also be punished for electing to start a TE over Stallworth this weekend, knowing hours before yesterday's early kickoffs that Stallworth would play tonight? The bottom line is that you can't tell another owner what their "best lineup" is. In addition, some owners just flat-out make mistakes every once in a while. They shouldn't be penalized for that. Seriously, if you're going to go apesh!t about an owner leaving a bye-week player active because it inadvertently hurt YOUR team, you need to get a freaking life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) I didn't read the any of the responses ... but my take on it is that why should it be the league's business to ensure that everybody has started what appears to be their optimum lineup, including off week players. If an owner wants to take a zero so be it. In my local I have Todd Heap as my only TE and I absolutely hate to take a zero ... but when BAL is off if I percieve that my opponent is weak and I could likely win without a replacement TE then why should I be required to drop somebody from my team that I want to keep for a 1 week replacement that will likely score very few points, especially when it will cost me $5 to make the move. Edited October 3, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Weak, very weak. Don't charge for free agents if people aren't going to field full squads. I honestly can't even believe this is a topic. I can't even imagine someone in my league starting a player on a BYE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Weak, very weak. Don't charge for free agents if people aren't going to field full squads. I honestly can't even believe this is a topic. I can't even imagine someone in my league starting a player on a BYE. Imagine if the AVERAGE defense in your league gave you NEGATIVE points. Now imagine that a DEF on a bye week gave you ZERO points, (which is obviously better than negative points). Now can you imagine why someone might intentionally start a player (in this case, a team DEF) that was on a bye? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Weak, very weak. Don't charge for free agents if people aren't going to field full squads. I honestly can't even believe this is a topic. I can't even imagine someone in my league starting a player on a BYE. So I guess everybody in your league has a scrub they are willing to drop and they are willing to pay the $ to pick up a 1 week player that has a high probability of scoring less than 5 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Imagine if the AVERAGE defense in your league gave you NEGATIVE points. Now imagine that a DEF on a bye week gave you ZERO points, (which is obviously better than negative points). Now can you imagine why someone might intentionally start a player (in this case, a team DEF) that was on a bye? Yes . . . SO MAKE IT AGAINST THE RULES. As many are saying, this shouldn't even be a question! Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 So I guess everybody in your league has a scrub they are willing to drop and they are willing to pay the $ to pick up a 1 week player that has a high probability of scoring less than 5 points. Did you even read what you quoted? He said, "Don't charge for free agents if people aren't going to field full squads". So, 'pay'ing of the '$' should be required if people aren't going to draft enough players to fill a valid lineup for every week of the season. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD6405 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) If you had Aaron Brooks and Kerry Collins as ur QB's and no one was in FA and your starter Palmer was on a bye. Would you start them, or bench them? I'd bench them. Also, guy in my league had a kicker on a bye this week on purpose (didnt want to drop a bench player) scored a league high for the year 104 points. Edited October 3, 2006 by CD6405 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I think that alot has to do with the league and its setup....there are many different strategys based on keeper format/dynasty/blind bidding systems/rookie taxi squads etc... just curious how some of you would handle an owner that fields this team: start 1QB,1RB,2WR,1TE,2Flex(rb,wr,te),1K, 2-3DL,2-3LB,2-3DB(8 total on D) 16 Teams Dynasty league)normal starters in bold) McMahon, Mike FA QB Nall, Craig BUF QB Wallace, Seneca SEA QB Faulk, Kevin NEP RB Pass, Patrick NEP RB Williams, Shaud BUF RB Chatman, Antonio CIN WR (Q) Davis, Andre' BUF WR Moore, Clarence BAL WR Moss, Sinorice NYG WR Becht, Anthony TBB TE Winslow, Kellen CLE TE (Q) Gould, Robbie CHI PK Kaeding, Nate SDC PK Scobee, Josh JAC PK Gregg, Kelly BAL DT Stroud, Marcus JAC DT (P) Allen, Jared KCC DE Kiwanuka, Mathias NYG DE Bockwoldt, Colby TEN LB Thornton, David TEN LB Ulbrich, Jeff SFO LB Griffin, Cedric MIN CB Bullocks, Josh NOS S Chavous, Corey STL S Demps, Will NYG S Taylor, Sean WAS S Williams, Shaun CAR S (Q) 28 Total Players Injured Reserve Greenway, Chad MIN LB (I) Total Salary: $74 Taxi Squad(must be assigned a contract to be able to start) Clemens, Kellen NYJ QB Croyle, Brodie KCC QB Bush, Reggie NOS RB Hagan, Derek MIA WR Jackson, Vincent SDC WR Webb, Jeff KCC WR Williams, Demetrius BAL WR (P) Alston, Jon STL LB Gaither, Omar PHI LB Hawk, A.J. GBP LB Howard, Thomas OAK LB Williams, Jamar CHI LB (I) chew on that for a bit and i will respond more tomm AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chonchito Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) It's going to happen to me in week 6 (and weeks 6 & 7 have 6 teams on bye, so it could be a problem in a lot of leagues). I'm in first place right now and am doing really well, so the last thing I want to do is take an intentional 0 in one of my player slots for that week. But that's better than the alternative of dropping a good D, K, or TE and having to dip into the WW pool for a mediocre or worse FA. That's the problem with the small rosters in a league where owners don't make many trades, but I didn't create the problem, so I'll just do what I have to to keep my team intact for as much of the season as possible. A goose egg in one spot for one week is well worth the full-season benefts. [/quote/] This is spot on. Maybe in the past when there were only four teams on bye each week (I think) such a rule could make sense. But this season, week 6 for example has NE, GB, CLE, INDY, JAX, Minn all on bye. On my team at wr right now I start Reggie Brown, Driver, and Holt. My backups are D Bennett and G Jennings. Brown just got hurt tonight. My league has 5 spots for wr. If Brown can't play by week 6 should I have to drop Jennings or Driver just to pick up a player the likes of Peerless Price? I'm already thinking of potential trades, but I can't say that any of them will work out. Of course I don't want to take a 0, but I'd rather have a better team the rest of the season than get four points from a mediocre player for one week. Edited October 3, 2006 by chonchito Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 This past week in three seperate leagues, I started bye week players. In two of the leagues the bye week players I started were kickers. In the other one it was a LB. I won two pretty easily, and lost on pretty badly. I knew going in that it wouldn't effect the out come of the games, so I decided to keep what I had rather than drop a player for a guy that I would play one week and never again. In most leagues I would have picked up a LB because they score to much to over look, but it was a 32 team league, so there really wasn't anything out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 This past week in three seperate leagues, I started bye week players. In two of the leagues the bye week players I started were kickers. In the other one it was a LB. I won two pretty easily, and lost on pretty badly. I knew going in that it wouldn't effect the out come of the games, so I decided to keep what I had rather than drop a player for a guy that I would play one week and never again. In most leagues I would have picked up a LB because they score to much to over look, but it was a 32 team league, so there really wasn't anything out there. I played 2 on bye this week and lost both considerably, so if i had dropped a good player for a miserable Kicker, i'd be really kicking myself this morning, Thankfully i play in leagues where "reason" to manage your own team is tolerated. I know i don't have any integrity for doing this like many have suggested for not starting an active kicker. Who else is holier then thou? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I didn't read the any of the responses ... but my take on it is that why should it be the league's business to ensure that everybody has started what appears to be their optimum lineup, including off week players. If an owner wants to take a zero so be it. In my local I have Todd Heap as my only TE and I absolutely hate to take a zero ... but when BAL is off if I percieve that my opponent is weak and I could likely win without a replacement TE then why should I be required to drop somebody from my team that I want to keep for a 1 week replacement that will likely score very few points, especially when it will cost me $5 to make the move. There seems to be a general disagreement regarding a fantasy owner's obligations. IMO, an owner's responsibility is not to try to put out the best team possible every single week, but to make his/her best effort to win a championship that year. And every once in a while, that includes being at a disadvantage during a bye week (for roster space, salary cap, or a myriad of other reasons) for the greater good of the rest of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.