|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
Realms Beyond Fantasy Football 2013-14 - Time to beat the Brit
|
|
I read about a format that offered up to two "wins" per week. There was the head-to-head win, and then everybody who scored in the top half got a second win. Not sure if that's doable with espn's site but it would mitigate some of the bad luck aspect
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
I disagree in part with that assessment Kuro. I think the only thing I've really done wrong with my roster is not bench Trent. The rest of my roster is performing pretty much every week. And I'm not spiking on single players breaking out, I'm spiking based on consistent performances from the players I have. I have refused to trade with most people because I like my roster. My bench is not great but I've actually still got Colston a couple flex options. I have never been unhappy with my final lineup on my roster why should my bench matter? I think I've consistently kept enough on my bench to fill in on bye weeks and that's all you really need unless someone suffers and injury and I was able to come through Lacy's concussion weeks just fine with my bench.
Just because I don't play a wild game like you do doesn't mean I'm any less calculating. I got the panthers D back in week 3 to upgrade the Bears D I have and that's played out great for me. So it isn't as if I haven't gone out to find guys to use. You say I've had really high highs but that isn't really true. Mostly I'm averaging around 100 pts a game. I've had only a couple weeks where the team hasn't performed. I'm consistently in the top half of the teams each week and yet I'm 4-6? My worst mistake was not benching Trent last week if I had put either Rueben or Colston in for Trent I would have won last week. How can you say I don't have enough depth if I've got the guys on the bench scoring too? You are using some real confirmation bias there Kuro. Weeks 1, 2 and 3 I lost to opponents that I would have beaten 2 out of 3 times during those weeks. IE: Pindi beat me week one but I would have beat him the next two weeks. Same with my other two losses. I just happened to play each of the 3 on the week they would have beaten me.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
(November 13th, 2013, 23:21)Lewwyn Wrote: I disagree in part with that assessment Kuro. I think the only thing I've really done wrong with my roster is not bench Trent. The rest of my roster is performing pretty much every week. And I'm not spiking on single players breaking out, I'm spiking based on consistent performances from the players I have. I have refused to trade with most people because I like my roster. My bench is not great but I've actually still got Colston a couple flex options. I have never been unhappy with my final lineup on my roster why should my bench matter? I think I've consistently kept enough on my bench to fill in on bye weeks and that's all you really need unless someone suffers and injury and I was able to come through Lacy's concussion weeks just fine with my bench. It's less confirmation bias and more that admittedly I didn't actually think to look at if you would have beat them nearby weeks. Maybe if I get time I'll do something like, I dunno, see how we'd all do if we swapped schedules, which would be interesting (Yahoo actually does this with the opponent you have each week, which is fun). I think you lack depth because if an RB goes down, you're screwed. If a starting WR goes down, you have Randle luck or Colston, and quite frankly Colston has sucked this year, being 52nd in WR points scored, having injuries and so on, and we only saw him do good against one of the worst defenses in the league. I actually like you picking up the Panthers D/ST, though I don't like benching them and starting the Bears D/ST (The Ravens have been giving up points but the Bears D/ST has been bad and I always feel iffy setting a T3 or so D/ST at this point for matchups). But...why do you have two kickers on your team? You could use some real wideout depth and there's people worth looking at on the wire. I could understand if it was, I dunno, maybe two top tier kickers, but it's the 21st ranked and 15th ranked. I just don't understand the reason behind keeping the kicker. I don't understand keeping Garrett Graham on the bench when he hasn't scored 5 or more points since week 3, topping out at 4, when you have Tony Gonzalez and Charles Clay on your team. You should always look to improve your bench even if you are happy with your lineup because your roster can, unless you have top end options like everywhere, always get better, and because keeping poor players on the bench will end up preventing you from getting high end players to use. Take, for example, Zac Stacy: Would you not be a lot happier with your options if you had picked him up? Or even a smaller end person, why not want someone like Brian Leonard or even someone low end like Hankerson? You could have picked up, say, Holmes, and now you have someone you can actually use instead of a secondary kicker with a small difference between your current one and who you will rarely use and get a big differential. And you did survive with Lacy, but it was a 1-1 with you beating Bruce if you used either of the weeks around that week and losing to Wetbandit either way. I feel that your depth is poor because you have a large amount of bench players who will not be utilized to get many points in the best scenarios but which are taking spots that could serve to provide anything from trade bait to valuable fill-ins in case your players get injured, which I feel is important considering your RBs and WRs rely heavily on starters at the moment and an injury could wreck your playoff chances. Pretty much every team will have 1 or 2 guys on the bench scoring simply by the amount of players that exist on teams, but I personally would not want to start Colston every week if one of my guys went down, considering that I've been avoiding starting him on tough matchups this year. That is why I feel you have poor depth: You don't have players I would want to really start if any of your starters went down. While my belief in players like Hartline may be misfounded, since Hartline has gone down since his start, I would feel that with my bench of players like Cotchery, Mike James before he went down (Brian Leonard could still be worth it if he gets the good amount of snaps, though), Hartline (He has a mediocre floor, but he hits it a lot, making him a fine injury fill-in) and some lottery tickets, plus even a handcuff, means that I am more prepared if something bad happens. It's also why I like Wetbandit: Not only is his normal team fairly stacked, but his bench is great, and he accomplished it by snagging guys like Keenan Allen, Donald Brown (For example, snagging him when T-Rich looked to be doing poor), Darren Sproles now and pulled off some nice trades by getting rid of Kendall Hunter, who had minimal value without Gore, then flipping the Kendall Wright he got for Andre Brown. Because of this, he has 3 RBs he can roll out every week with 2 upside options, 3 of them through adding or trading, 4 high-end wideouts with 2 just in case and a Jimmy Graham handcuff. This was done while averaging a mere 2 transacations per week (17 adds/drops, 2 trades, 10 weeks). I'm not saying you need to be a spaz like me, I'm saying that you're doing less than transaction a week while having a second kicker and third tight end on your bench, and nobody will tell you it's good, even if you have had some shit luck. (And yes, I know the Wetbandit comparison is not fully valid, but no roster comparison totally is since everyone drafts differently, but snagging Donald Brown is something any roster could have done and you could argue that Lewwyn had even more reason to do it than Wetbandit) And that's without considering trading wire fodder. I'm not trying to sound rude or arrogant, though I imagine the way I write I probably do, but I do like talking fantasy philosophy and my opinion is that you shouldn't have more than 2 TEs (TE is one of the most flaky positions), unless you have some kind of Graham/Gronkowski/Gonzalez holy G trinity (Though in that case, trade one!), or two kickers unless one is on a bye. It just isn't an allocation of resources that grades out well. (November 13th, 2013, 23:02)pindicator Wrote: I read about a format that offered up to two "wins" per week. There was the head-to-head win, and then everybody who scored in the top half got a second win. Not sure if that's doable with espn's site but it would mitigate some of the bad luck aspect This actually sounds really cool. I wonder if sometime we should run a second league that is just not even H2H and overall points. It'd be fun and I certainly wouldn't mind being in 2 RB leagues.
November 14th, 2013, 02:47
(This post was last modified: November 14th, 2013, 02:49 by wetbandit.)
I've heard of a league in which you play everyone each week; for this league, you would have 11 games each week. I think both are intriguing, but you can't get away from the inherent luck/randomness in football because of the small sample of games.
I'll defend Lewwyn a bit here: He's been extremely unlucky with his match ups to be 2nd in points scored and sit out of the playoffs in a 12-team league where 8 teams qualify. Even though he could have managed his roster better, you can say that of almost anyone. Honestly, I have the Midas Touch with my moves in this league. I've been fortunate to have the players I've drafted perform at or above expectations along with my bench players. Sometimes, you just run good. Donald Brown, while increasing his fantasy sexiness, is someone you probably, or hopefully, would never play just because his production fluctuates greatly. I don't think it's fair to hold that against Lewwyn especially considering TR was a 1st round pick and arguably had RB2 upside the last 6 weeks in a 12 team league. Plus, RBs stink this year. As an aside, I just want to be sure, since we discussed it previously, of some rules that aren't specifically addressed on the site. For instance, no trades are allowed during the playoffs. RB games generally follow the "don't be a dick rule" and while there are many examples here for civ, it's less clear to me what is generally considered verboten in this group. This is especially true given that the site will process any transaction. Some leagues allow no pickups in the playoffs, for instance. While I'm sure that's not the case for this league, I'd like to understand the framework better.
Trent Richardson hasn't had RB2 appeal for quite a while. I'd say it was waning around San Diego, though worthwhile as a flex, gone after Denver and obliterated after the bye week. Trent didn't have a high YPC last year, so he had to either increase his YPC (Which it did not appear was in the cards) or score a lot of TDs, the last seeming most likely but at around 6 weeks in you can't rely on him and have to look at other options. But then again, I am also of the opinion a lot of people play their stars far too late when it is obvious they should be benched until they produce.
My point is just that while you have had the Midas Touch, doing transactions will increase your odds of doing so, and that there just isn't any point of keeping a 2nd kicker etc, it just doesn't add up to doing good. I've personally found RBs have been fairly good this year, but that might just be because the guys I didn't like ended up being the ones who got hit by the bullet (Arian, S-Jax though I did draft him in one league, Ray Rice though I did draft him in one league, Trent Richardson...). Only one that really hit me hard was Ridley and he seems to be doing okay. I'm not trying to diss Lewwyn, it's just that he's made choices I feel are questionable. (I also somehow just noticed we have an 8 person bracket and not a 6 person bracket :lol) As for playoff rules, I'd say don't trade and that's pretty much it, since we all agreed on it to start the year IIRC to prevent any cheesing. I don't think we really had any others. Actually, with all this talk of various football leagues, I wonder if there'd be any interest in a dynasty league...I've never tried one, though I am not sure how much I'd like it, it could be interesting.
Well unfortunately I haven't had enough time to invest any more than I have the last few weeks. The reason Graham and Henry are still on my roster is that they are left over from byes fill ins. That and I haven't seen any one to try and pick up. The last 2 waivers I put in I got beat based on order. I was very active on the waiver wire and churning my bench earlier in the year. AND YET that was when I was losing most. >_>
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
2nd kicker is silly, otherwise I agree with Lewwyn.
I've heard of the up-to-2 or -11 win leagues. The former smooths out the luck a bit. The latter turns into roto baseball though. That's not necessarily bad, but it definitely lowers both the excitement of any one matchup and the ability for playoff standing comebacks later in the season. |
