Top team to miss the playoffs

[detlef]

That's a bogus argument. One team can post astronomical scores in a few weeks and be a top scoring team, yet be weaker for the overall scope of the season than other teams. FF is about depth as well as star power. Can a team survive injuries and make improvements as the season proceeds is a critical part of the FF experience.

 

So its plainly isn't as "plain and simple" as you seem to think.

Well, truth be told, one doesn't end up among the highest scorers after week 14 simply by posting "astronomical scores in a few weeks". None the less, all the depth, dealing with injuries, evolving, etc that you mention manifest themselves in one way, and one way only. In scoring a lot of points. There is absolutely nothing you can do, short of stockpiling good players and thus not allowing others to use them that any Fantasy player can do to limit his opponents points scored. Thus, again. Good teams score a lot, bad teams don't.

 

The other funny thing is that teams that go off one week and not the next are thought of as somehow weaker than those who always put up solid numbers. The assumption is that one team is "deeper" than the other. In reality, a great week is often the result of all your studs having big games the same day. So, one team happens to be fortunate enough that one week, Turner goes for 4 TDs, the next week, T Jones does, and the next week Ravens D gets a TD, 5 sacks, and 4 TOs. Meanwhile, all those guys could just as easily all gone off the same game and all gotten shut down the next. In one case, there is the illusion of "depth" because he consistently puts up good numbers. The other is a streaky team with nothing but star power but no meat. Only, it's the same team.

 

I know this. In the 12 or so years I've played this, there's one thing that remains very, very constant. At the end of the season, the teams that have the best players, have the most points. That doesn't mean they don't trip up in the play-offs, because anyone can have an off week. But, when you look at the rosters of the teams with high total points, you are rarely surprised.

[detlef]

I did. Apparently you have chosen not to read it.

You know, you actually make enough solid points here that there's no reason to pretend you have when you haven't. You'll notice that I conceded that one could make an argument for why H2H is better than points. I was just taking issue with you bothering to bring up the NFL tie-breaker as justification.

 

In the NFL, Pitt could beat Balt 10-7. We see that as a hard hitting battle between two great Ds. The fact that Pitt scored less than nearly every other team in the league that week is not even mentioned, and for good reason. Thus, the fact that Pitt only put up 10 pts should never be held against them.

 

In a FF league where teams average 100pts, if one team beats another 40-37, that's freaking embarrassing. That's not a gutty win. That's not two defensive powers in a battle of wills. That's the Bengals vs the Lions. Two crappy teams who are merely lucky they were playing each other because neither would have beaten anyone else that day.

Edited December 2, 2008 by detlef

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'm the top scoring team by a small margin with one week to go in a 12 team dynasty league. My record is 6-6-1. I thought my playoff hopes were over, but I have a small sliver of a chance to sneak in as the 4th seed if I win this week and all three 7-6 teams lose.

[theprofessor]

That is a complete non-issue and I find it annoying as hell when people bring up that argument in these instances.

 

If there was a more obvious case of apples to oranges...

 

Were the NFL to make total points scored an important factor, it would simply reward teams that score more points even if they have crappy Ds. It would, in no way, be a consistently accurate barometer of which teams are best.

 

In Fantasy, awarding high scoring teams is about as precise a way as you can find for rewarding the best teams. The best teams score a lot of points, the worst teams don't. Plain and simple. Winning a low scoring game is not a sign of grit, determination, or great D. It's a sign of being lucky enough that you happened to play a team that had a crappier day than you did.

 

H2H makes it more fun because it gives you something specific to root for every week. I suppose it also rewards teams that put forth consistent efforts rather than ones that have streaky players (though there's a better way than simple H2H to factor this in). If you want to make an argument for H2H over points, that's fine. Just don't point to the NFL as any justification because the argument doesn't transfer in this situation.

 

That's why I'm an advocate of having some of the spots filled by comparing H2H but not all of them. As was suggested above. There's something entertaining about allowing that lucky team that keeps winning despite not scoring much into the big dance, but this at least assures that nobody gets hosed. Hell, in this case, dude put up a good record and scored points and still got hosed.

 

Certainly it is too late this year for that league to do so. But I do see "a problem".

 

I agree with this. My leagues give a small payout ($150.00) to the division champions with the best W-L record. But the "real" champion is the Points leader who gets a $800.00 payout. This isn't the NFL ..... This is Fantasy Football and the BEST team is the team that scores the MOST points.

Edited December 2, 2008 by theprofessor

[driveby]

det nails it.

 

If you want to explain why h2h is a great system fine, but using the NFL to do so is stupid.

 

And for the record, my league is 16 teams in 4 divisions. 8 teams make the playoffs. 1 through 4 seeds are the division champs seeded by record with total points being the tie breaker. Seeds 5 through 7 are the teams with the 3 next best records regardless of division - total points tie breaker. The 8th seed is the team with the highest points not already in the playoffs, regardless of record.

 

The #1 seed is a team that won a lot of weeks by a point or 2 and sits 5th in total points scored - he got lucky all year. The #8 seed outscored the #1 seed by almost 200 points but lost a lot of games 105 to 103 where the average points scored were around 80.

 

The #8 team is better than the #1 team by any objective measure yet would have missed the playoffs if h2h record were the sole determining factor.

[Bronco Billy]

You know, you actually make enough solid points here that there's no reason to pretend you have when you haven't. You'll notice that I conceded that one could make an argument for why H2H is better than points. I was just taking issue with you bothering to bring up the NFL tie-breaker as justification.

 

The whole point being, as you seem to have missed it, is that the NFL is a head-to-head competiton league, with seeding for playoffs determined by record.

 

If a FF league is a H2H league, why wouldn't it behave in a similar manner? If a league chooses to be a total points league, your argument would have standing. In a H2H league, your argument is greatly diminished. Owners choose to participate in H2H leagues because they like the 1 on 1 competition each week, most probably because it mimics the NFL among many other reasons. To simply dismiss that as you have is disingenuous.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[driveby]

If a FF league is a H2H league, why wouldn't it behave in a similar manner?

It should to a degree. The difference being in the NFL the players on my team, the defense, influence if not determine what the offensive players on my opponents team do. Therefore many ff leagues combine systems to keep the fun part of the h2h system but balance it with a total points component to reward good but unlucky teams.

[Bronco Billy]

It should to a degree. The difference being in the NFL the players on my team, the defense, influence if not determine what the offensive players on my opponents team do. Therefore many ff leagues combine systems to keep the fun part of the h2h system but balance it with a total points component to reward good but unlucky teams.

 

So what's the difference between the good but unlucky teams in the NFL? There's a good chance that DEN will make the playoffs with a worse record and worse team than one or two potential wild card teams that will miss out. Hey - that's the way it works. I remember DEN being a 10-6 team & missing the playoffs, also. How about whichever team comes out of the NFC North and other NFC teams with better records missing out?

 

It's the way the league is set up and the intention of fostering competition/interest. I have no problem with total points leagues - that's the wqay the owners want to run the league and they can be great fun. I have no problem with all-play leagues, either, and think that they are tremendous fun and good competition. As are the H2H leagues and the leagues that mix H2H play with total points for playoff spots. All can be great fun as long as the owners know what they want and enjoy the league - and understand that no matter how it is set up, there is a chance that there will be an "unfair" outcome at some point in league play & the playoff setup, and that they deal with it appropriately.

 

What I do have problems with is someone else telling a bunch of people that they are 100% wrong in the way they set up their league and it should be done only one way. That's assinine & arrogant, and quite frankly tells me that the person acting as an "expert" has little to no clue what they are talking about.

[Azazello1313]

I suppose. But I would surmise that 90% of 12 team leagues have 3 divisions, thus 3 division winners and 3 wild cards. I am OCD when it comes to FF I I guess

 

you can also do 3 division winners and one wild card, for a two week playoff. this is by far my preferred format for a 12-team league, by the way. gives you a 14 week regular season, which means you can play each team in your division twice (6 games) and every other team once (8 games) and it works out perfectly.

[driveby]

So what's the difference between the good but unlucky teams in the NFL? There's a good chance that DEN will make the playoffs with a worse record and worse team than one or two potential wild card teams that will miss out. Hey - that's the way it works. I remember DEN being a 10-6 team & missing the playoffs, also. How about whichever team comes out of the NFC North and other NFC teams with better records missing out?

 

It's the way the league is set up and the intention of fostering competition/interest. I have no problem with total points leagues - that's the wqay the owners want to run the league and they can be great fun. I have no problem with all-play leagues, either, and think that they are tremendous fun and good competition. As are the H2H leagues and the leagues that mix H2H play with total points for playoff spots. All can be great fun as long as the owners know what they want and enjoy the league - and understand that no matter how it is set up, there is a chance that there will be an "unfair" outcome at some point in league play & the playoff setup, and that they deal with it appropriately.

 

What I do have problems with is someone else telling a bunch of people that they are 100% wrong in the way they set up their league and it should be done only one way. That's assinine & arrogant, and quite frankly tells me that the person acting as an "expert" has little to no clue what they are talking about.

I think the point was that to justify a h2h system by comparing it to the NFL was stupid, not h2h leagues themselves.

[Bronco Billy]

I think the point was that to justify a h2h system by comparing it to the NFL was stupid, not h2h leagues themselves.

 

The statement was made that total points was "plain & simple" the only right way to determine with FF teams are the best. The comparison to the NFL also was denegrated, although a case can certainly be made - obviously.

 

Would you agree that the way the NFL sets up its playoffs can be argued that some deserving teams can be left out of the playoffs and seemingly lesser deserving teams get in? If so, the comparison is valid. If not, I'd like to hear your argument in support of that position.

[Azazello1313]

Were the NFL to make total points scored an important factor, it would simply reward teams that score more points even if they have crappy Ds. It would, in no way, be a consistently accurate barometer of which teams are best.

 

In Fantasy, awarding high scoring teams is about as precise a way as you can find for rewarding the best teams. The best teams score a lot of points, the worst teams don't. Plain and simple. Winning a low scoring game is not a sign of grit, determination, or great D. It's a sign of being lucky enough that you happened to play a team that had a crappier day than you did.

 

pretty much a homerun post, but pony boy has a bit of a point as well...

 

One team can post astronomical scores in a few weeks and be a top scoring team, yet be weaker for the overall scope of the season than other teams.

 

well, I agree it's reasonable to say that consistency is something that factors into overall team strength. that's why I think the best measure of overall team strength is all-play record. total points second. a randomized, arbitrary head to head record, last.

[CrazyOne]

Way back before I was playing our league was a points-only league. We are head-to-head now for I don't know how many years, however many I've been playing, I think about 10. But, we keep one prize for top total YTD points, and we use total YTD points as tiebreaker for playoff seeding. Also, we don't have ties even in the regular season; those are determined by bench points.

 

Anyway, we have the opposite happening in our league. We've beat each other up in the middle rankings enough that it's possible that one of the playoff teams will be 7-7. It's 10 teams, 2 divisions, 4 playoff spots in Weeks 15-16. The two division winners get a spot, then two true wild cards, best records regardless of division. It's most likely that both wild cards will come from the same division this time:

 

Division A

9-4

6-7

6-7

6-7

4-9

 

Division B

8-5

8-5

7-6

6-7

5-8

 

The two 8-5 teams play each other this week, so one will be 9-5 and win the division. The other will be a wild card, and the 7-6 guy should get the 4th spot, although the seeding could be either-or assuming he wins because those top 3 teams in Division B are close in points. If 7-6 guy loses there's a tiny chance of one of those 6-7 teams getting in, but he's ahead by over 60 points to the first one and 100 to the next. That kind of spread is possible in our scoring but rather unlikely.

 

Anyway, it's a long way of saying the top 4 teams are pretty much getting in this year no matter how you measure them. The 4 leading teams right now have the 4 highest YTD point totals. We very rarely have had someone with the highest total points not get into the playoffs. I think it has happened once, maybe twice. So in general this seems to work well.

 

Unfortunately, I am one of the 6-7 teams, the one with the 100 point deficit even if I win and 7-6 guy loses....

Edited December 2, 2008 by CrazyOne

[detlef]

What I do have problems with is someone else telling a bunch of people that they are 100% wrong in the way they set up their league and it should be done only one way. That's assinine & arrogant, and quite frankly tells me that the person acting as an "expert" has little to no clue what they are talking about.

Ah, but I didn't actually do that, now did I. Not only did I simply say that it was "about as precise a way as you can find", I also invited you to justify H2H by some means besides the NFL's policy which others, it appears totally agree is apple to oranges.

 

The post to which you are referring:

In Fantasy, awarding high scoring teams is about as precise a way as you can find for rewarding the best teams. The best teams score a lot of points, the worst teams don't. Plain and simple. Winning a low scoring game is not a sign of grit, determination, or great D. It's a sign of being lucky enough that you happened to play a team that had a crappier day than you did.

 

H2H makes it more fun because it gives you something specific to root for every week. I suppose it also rewards teams that put forth consistent efforts rather than ones that have streaky players (though there's a better way than simple H2H to factor this in). If you want to make an argument for H2H over points, that's fine. Just don't point to the NFL as any justification because the argument doesn't transfer in this situation.

 

I think the point was that to justify a h2h system by comparing it to the NFL was stupid, not h2h leagues themselves.

Exactly

 

well, I agree it's reasonable to say that consistency is something that factors into overall team strength. that's why I think the best measure of overall team strength is all-play record. total points second. a randomized, arbitrary head to head record, last.

And I also agree that play-all is possibly the best overall.

[driveby]

The statement was made that total points was "plain & simple" the only right way to determine with FF teams are the best.

This I completely agree with, but, it's not necessarily the best way to run a ff league if you want to keep most owners interested over the course of a full season,

 

Would you agree that the way the NFL sets up its playoffs can be argued that some deserving teams can be left out of the playoffs and seemingly lesser deserving teams get in?

I suppose on a subjective basis you can certainly argue this, but I don't think you could conclusively prove it.

[keggerz]

In Fantasy, awarding high scoring teams is about as precise a way as you can find for rewarding the best teams. The best teams score a lot of points, the worst teams don't. Plain and simple. Winning a low scoring game is not a sign of grit, determination, or great D.

I have a league that I want to create but MFL can't accomodate the scoring for it yet....here is the idea (not my original idea...was a sandbox league I was in many moons ago...or so I think it was sandbox) anyway here it is:

 

Must be an IDP league...and this time you do actually play D

 

the way it works

Offense have however many starters you want too....

IDP you have 10 starters 3DL/3LB/3DB plus 1 Flex(the flex is very important.

Depending on what D you start you will take points away from your opponents RBs

and add points to their WRs or vice versa

 

If you start 4DL/3LB/3DB then you are "STUFFING THE RUN" and a predetermined factor will deduct a % from what your opponents

RBs score...but in doing so you are opening yourself up to the pass and your opponents WRs will get a predetermined % added to their score...sorta a pick your poison type deal...but if you were facing say Marion Barber/AP/Portis at RB and Brandon Lloyd & Chambers at WR then it would make sense to "stack the box"

 

Another starting option would be 3DL/3LB/4DB this is just the opposite of the above and will deduct from your opponents WRs and add to their RBs

 

If you play a 3DL/4LB/3DB then it is a push and you dont add or deduct points from any of your opponents players

 

 

I know it sounds sorta crazy but it is a way for Fantasy GMs to actually play defense while playing Defense(IDP)...maybe I need to see if I can get DMD to get me into Mikes ear at MFL

 

edit: and i guess if you wanted to use a full 11 IDP starters the base could be 3DL/4LB/3DB plus the 1 flex but I would suggest if you did that than you shouldnt be able to start 5 LBs...or hell maybe you can...i am sure there is a ton of tweaking that can go into it...if there is enough interest to create a league like this I might consider trying to put it together for next year even if we have to do some modified scoring on our own...if you would be interested PM me and then I will take it from there

Edited December 2, 2008 by keggerz

[Grits and Shins]

I don't see a problem. If you are in a H2H league, playoff seeding is done by wins, not points scored. The NFL doesn't seed playoff teams by points scored, either.

 

If you think points scored should be a primary determining factor, then you either need to switch to a points league or make one of your wild card criteria points scored based.

 

The team that will be out of the playoffs will have one of the top three W-L records and will be one of the top three scoring teams

 

DIvision 1

Team 1 ... (10-3) ... 1761.45

Team 2 ... (10-3) ... 1618.10

Team 3 ... (10-3) ... 1433.10

Team 4 ... (8-5) ... 1654.50

Team 5 ... (4-9) ... 1121.80

Team 6 ... (3-10) ... 1305.95

 

DIvision 2

Team 1 ... (8-5) ... 1563.75

Team 2 ... (6-7) ... 1428.70

Team 3 ... (6-7) ... 1333.95

Team 4 ... (5-8) ... 1282.50

Team 5 ... (4-9) ... 1315.25

Team 6 ... (4-9) ... 1282.45

 

In division 1 Team 1 and Team 2 play next week. The winner will win the division. The loser will only make the playoffs if Team 3 loses as well. Team 2 swept Team 3 in the regular season. If Team 2 loses and Team 3 wins, Team 2 will have the 2nd best record in the league at 10-4 (with two 11-3 teams in front of him) and the 2nd or 3rd highest points scored ... but will not be in the playoffs.

 

Obviously division 2 sucked.

[detlef]

Would you agree that the way the NFL sets up its playoffs can be argued that some deserving teams can be left out of the playoffs and seemingly lesser deserving teams get in? If so, the comparison is valid. If not, I'd like to hear your argument in support of that position.

It should be noted that it is in the NFL's best interest to make sure that every region is represented in the play-offs in order to keep all the fans interested and the money flowing. Breaking the league down into divisions and assuring that one team from each will play for it all does this.

 

This needn't be the case in FF. Certainly you want to keep as many owners interested for as long as possible, but one could argue that is just as easily done weighting points higher than H2H. Provided there is any parity at all, if a team catches fire and scores a ton of points down the stretch, he could catch nearly anyone. However, if he has a crappy record, he can only gain so many games on the field.

 

None the less, the NFL have still set up a back up plan to at least allow 3 teams from one division to make it if, in fact, the two best non-division winners are from the same division. Something that, more than disregarding points, is one of the problems with the league that started this whole thread. If they took the two division winners and the next two best records, I doubt the 10-4 team would be left out.

 

None the less, the fact that the NFL's format sometimes allows "less deserving" teams to make the play-offs also has little to no bearing on the conversation. Unless allowing "less deserving teams" is a goal that you want to emulate. Of course, it shouldn't be.

[detlef]

I have a league that I want to create but MFL can't accomodate the scoring for it yet....here is the idea (not my original idea...was a sandbox league I was in many moons ago...or so I think it was sandbox) anyway here it is:

 

Must be an IDP league...and this time you do actually play D

 

the way it works

Offense have however many starters you want too....

IDP you have 10 starters 3DL/3LB/3DB plus 1 Flex(the flex is very important.

Depending on what D you start you will take points away from your opponents RBs

and add points to their WRs or vice versa

 

If you start 4DL/3LB/3DB then you are "STUFFING THE RUN" and a predetermined factor will deduct a % from what your opponents

RBs score...but in doing so you are opening yourself up to the pass and your opponents WRs will get a predetermined % added to their score...sorta a pick your poison type deal...but if you were facing say Marion Barber/AP/Portis at RB and Brandon Lloyd & Chambers at WR then it would make sense to "stack the box"

 

Another starting option would be 3DL/3LB/4DB this is just the opposite of the above and will deduct from your opponents WRs and add to their RBs

 

If you play a 3DL/4LB/3DB then it is a push and you dont add or deduct points from any of your opponents players

 

 

I know it sounds sorta crazy but it is a way for Fantasy GMs to actually play defense while playing Defense(IDP)...maybe I need to see if I can get DMD to get me into Mikes ear at MFL

 

edit: and i guess if you wanted to use a full 11 IDP starters the base could be 3DL/4LB/3DB plus the 1 flex but I would suggest if you did that than you shouldnt be able to start 5 LBs...or hell maybe you can...i am sure there is a ton of tweaking that can go into it...if there is enough interest to create a league like this I might consider trying to put it together for next year even if we have to do some modified scoring on our own...if you would be interested PM me and then I will take it from there

I too, have thought about how you could make H2H really H2H. I'll take a deeper look at your thoughts and see if it makes sense to me.

 

My first concern was whether "stacking the box" should matter much if you're stacking it with a bunch of crappy players. That, somehow, would need to factor in.

Edited December 2, 2008 by detlef

[keggerz]

I too, have thought about how you could make H2H really H2H. I'll take a deeper look at your thoughts and see if it makes sense to me.

 

My first concern was whether "stacking the box" should matter much if you're stacking it with a bunch of crappy players. That, somehow, would need to factor in.

it factors in that they will score crappy

[detlef]

it factors in that they will score crappy

Well, what might be cool, and again, just spit-balling here because it could really be a pain and/or suck. None the less, it might increase the value of some IDP players that don't get the love they could deserve (a la possession WRs). That is, to some how factor in how effective they are at stopping the run/pass. For example, you might have a shut-down CB. Based on standard IDP scoring, dude might not be all that good to have. However, in your version, where you actually can alter your opponents scoring, dude could be an asset.

 

Same with a hole plugging DT. Maybe he doesn't get a ton of sacks or tackles, but if he ties up two O-linemen every single play, and or opens up lanes for his LBs, he's an asset to his D and somehow could, perhaps, be an asset to yours.

 

Obviously, this is starting to get complicated. Then again, you're talking about an 11 IDP roster, so we've already sort of crossed that bridge. One simple way to address this it to assign starting players from Ds a negative impact value based on how the unit they belong to stops either the run or pass. This could be adversely weighted if the team happens to be particularly bad at the other. In other words, Indy's pass D might not so much credit for giving up low numbers because that could just be do to the fact that people have so much luck running on them. Perhaps this could be addressed by having the number be a factor of yards and points allowed per attempt. At any rate, your team could have an aggregate factor based on the values of all your defensive players.

 

Hell, this could be brought into play even using team Ds and might be a nice wrinkle in determining which D you start. If you have a D on your roster that is nails against the run they might be worth starting over a team that is opportunistic if you're playing a FF team that is loaded at RB.

[keggerz]

Well, what might be cool, and again, just spit-balling here because it could really be a pain and/or suck. None the less, it might increase the value of some IDP players that don't get the love they could deserve (a la possession WRs). That is, to some how factor in how effective they are at stopping the run/pass. For example, you might have a shut-down CB. Based on standard IDP scoring, dude might not be all that good to have. However, in your version, where you actually can alter your opponents scoring, dude could be an asset.

 

Same with a hole plugging DT. Maybe he doesn't get a ton of sacks or tackles, but if he ties up two O-linemen every single play, and or opens up lanes for his LBs, he's an asset to his D and somehow could, perhaps, be an asset to yours.

 

Obviously, this is starting to get complicated. Then again, you're talking about an 11 IDP roster, so we've already sort of crossed that bridge. One simple way to address this it to assign starting players from Ds a negative impact value based on how the unit they belong to stops either the run or pass. This could be adversely weighted if the team happens to be particularly bad at the other. In other words, Indy's pass D might not so much credit for giving up low numbers because that could just be do to the fact that people have so much luck running on them. Perhaps this could be addressed by having the number be a factor of yards and points allowed per attempt. At any rate, your team could have an aggregate factor based on the values of all your defensive players.

 

Hell, this could be brought into play even using team Ds and might be a nice wrinkle in determining which D you start. If you have a D on your roster that is nails against the run they might be worth starting over a team that is opportunistic if you're playing a FF team that is loaded at RB.

let me just call your 1st concern "The Shut-Down Corner Syndrome" currently in IDP I don't know of any scoring system that has a way tofactor in the true value of a "Shut-Down Corner"....Rook CBs tend to score very well because they get picked on...Shut-Down Corners don't get thrown at...it is one of those things that there may not be an actual "fix" for....but with regards to DTs vs DEs etc...I am in leagues where all scoring is graduated...a DT will get more for a tackle then a LB to help "even" out scoring some (or to add some value to otherwise less valuable positions)...your other idea has merit (using the real NFL D ranking to come up with a factor but that would be WAY involved and ever changing which would probably make it next to impossible to implement)...rather then hijack this thread any more maybe I will put this into its own thread (here for more traffic and in the IDP forum too)...the league can be called "Putting the D in IDP"

[Bronco Billy]

Okay, keg, here's the rain on your parade.

 

I think your thinking through of this idea is commendable, but the follow through on actual implementation is going to be next to impossible.

 

The D obviously has to react to the lineup that the O submits (very much like real football) - but what happens when the O changes with 1/2 an hour to go before game time because of inactive/active/injury news and the D can't react for whatever reason? I've found myself shuffling lineups due to injury/benching news literally right up to gametime.

 

I think the logistics is going to get you on this one, GB.

[keggerz]

Okay, keg, here's the rain on your parade.

 

I think your thinking through of this idea is commendable, but the follow through on actual implementation is going to be next to impossible.

 

The D obviously has to react to the lineup that the O submits (very much like real football) - but what happens when the O changes with 1/2 an hour to go before game time because of inactive/active/injury news and the D can't react for whatever reason? I've found myself shuffling lineups due to injury/benching news literally right up to gametime.

 

I think the logistics is going to get you on this one, GB.

well setting the lineup is really no different then how its done now...i look at who i am playing and how I think his team will perform and may make a decision based on my opponents lineup..so I dont see that as a big issue...or another option would be to make lineup submissions invisible until the players are locked but I dont think that would be necessary...and it wouldnt just add the D element but an O element also in that you can try to exploit your opponents Defensive weakness...i do however agree that logistically it could be a nightmare to create

[detlef]

Okay, keg, here's the rain on your parade.

 

I think your thinking through of this idea is commendable, but the follow through on actual implementation is going to be next to impossible.

 

The D obviously has to react to the lineup that the O submits (very much like real football) - but what happens when the O changes with 1/2 an hour to go before game time because of inactive/active/injury news and the D can't react for whatever reason? I've found myself shuffling lineups due to injury/benching news literally right up to gametime.

 

I think the logistics is going to get you on this one, GB.

That's the chance you take. All it seems keg is suggesting is that you can load up on certain positions at IDP in order to adversely affect what you feel your opponent's strongest suit is. If you're playing against a guy who's got Forte, T Jones, and Portis, then you're going to put 8 in the box. If he wants to counter by benching one of these guys in favor of a lesser option at WR, so be it, but at worse you've at least forced him to put a player with less potential in his line-up.

 

If the dude is stacked at WR as well, then you're screwed, but then, that's the benefit of having great players at both RB and WR, it makes you harder to game plan for. Just like the real game.

 

None the less, there would be a ton to iron out, but it does seem to have potential to make H2H more meaningful in Fantasy.

 

Of course, one thing you can never do is mimic the notion of players doing what it takes to win. Which is yet another reason why H2H should matter much more in the real game than in FF. Drew Brees has no idea (and doesn't care) that you need 25 pts out of him on MNF to put you over the top for the week. He's going to do what he needs to do to win the game for his team, even if that means taking knee on the last series when one more passing yard would have won you the game.