Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Season VI NFF Issues/Discussion Topics
Posted 23 September 2011 - 02:04 PM
Posted 23 September 2011 - 03:31 PM
Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:27 PM
- Exodus +1 this
Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:39 PM
Lucas is how I see a lot of leagues I've been in, well sort of. Most leagues I've been in has been
WR/TE (sometimes RB too)
It's not that bad of a format, and really plays well during bye weeks.
Posted 23 September 2011 - 11:15 PM
Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:06 AM
Furthermore, it's a formation almost never seen in an NFL game, so there's no legitimate case to be made for its "realism".
You don't see it on one play, but you see it over the course of a full game. Which is what we're simulating. 3 running backs play over the course of a game. 3-6 receivers play over the course of a game. 2 or more tight ends play. We're not simulating a single play of a game, we're simulating an entire game.
Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:35 AM
Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:05 AM
Yeah, same here.
I don't think I'd want to add another spot, but if the majority did, I'd say Ash's idea would be my choice on how to do it.
Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:34 AM
Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:15 PM
Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:45 PM
Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:56 PM
Posted 24 September 2011 - 01:00 PM
Adding a second RB Slot wouldn't be completely horrible, but like I said I would rather we didn't touch it.
Posted 25 September 2011 - 07:08 AM
Right, which is why you get a player's production for the entire game. It's about an NFL team's core players, not the entire squad, though.. There are only a certain number of players that play most of the game for a team. It's only possible to have so many full-time players, because there's only 11 spots. What we have equates a full-time NFL player with one of our starters. What you're saying equates one of our starters with a 3rd string back that may only be out there for 3-4 snaps the entire game. That doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, but the real NFL has their talent distributed over 32 teams, we only have it spread over 12 or 14 or however many teams we have now. So our 3rd running back is much better than your average real team's running back. But this conversation is pointless because you've made up your mind so you're going to twist "real life football" to fit whatever your opinion is at the moment, as you always do.
Personally, it doesn't bother me that you do this but maybe this is why Lucas gets irritated with you. I can see where it'd be annoying.
I don't have to relate things to real life football to validate my opinion. I like what I like. And in this case, I love the idea of 2 RBs, 2 WRs, and a flex. That flex can include a tight end, that's fine. But that's what I want with my one vote.
Posted 25 September 2011 - 08:25 AM
Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:10 AM
The funny thing is that you (and only you) say this almost exact same thing at least once a year, every year. So, that tells me I'm pretty consistent...and for whatever reason, it really does bother you.
But this conversation is pointless because you've made up your mind so you're going to twist "real life football" to fit whatever your opinion is at the moment, as you always do.
Personally, it doesn't bother me...
And I didn't really understand what your point was about the 32 teams, but then again, it's not like you're going to change your mind, either. This is an open discussion for the whole league, though.
Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:26 AM
I would prefer we just added a roster spot and made it RB/WR/TE
YES. Out benches are WAY too deep. We need roster modification, and have for years.
Posted 22 November 2011 - 02:26 PM
I get that.
But we've gone to the other extreme. Every ****ing week, Miles Austin is too injured to play so I put him on IR. After the game, he's a "Q" so on Tuesday when I want to make transactions, I'm not allowed to until I take him off IR, which means cutting another player. Then on Thursday or Friday he's downgraded to "O" again so I put him back on IR and resign the player I had to cut. The next Tuesday I have to go through the same ****. It's really getting to be a pain in the ****ing ass.
I think there should be a grace period where you're allowed to make transactions just in case a mofo who goes from O to Q back to O in 2-3 days doesn't bring your entire team to a crashing halt until you cut a player. That, or you can only put a player on IR if he's O but he can stay if he's Q and you only have to remove him if he gets better than Q.
This is probably a rare thing, and probably has more to do with Miles Austin being made of glass, but I thought I'd bring it up.
Posted 25 November 2011 - 12:22 AM
Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:36 AM
Our keeper system does not allow for a penalty for keeping a player which makes it more akin to a dynasty league. As a result there is only a minimal incentive to build a team with rookies as we only allow for one rookie keeper from year to year with roster restrictions.
The other effect of this system is that the bench spots are far too many for a small starting lineup - especially if the rookie keeper is dropped or forced into action.
My suggestion is twofold: (1) addition of one RB to the starting lineup making it more in tune with traditional FFB lineups [QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, and a Flex]. It would, in my opinion, justify our deep rosters. (2) the creation of a rookie farm system. My thought is that after the NFF draft, we hold a rookie only draft for those rookies not already selected. The rookie draft would be 2-3 rounds, and the farm system would incorporate the existing rookie keeper rules (3 years limit for being kept, unless promoted to active roster). Existing rookie keepers would obviously be grandfathered in with no penalty.
Posted 03 January 2012 - 10:09 AM
Posted 03 January 2012 - 03:11 PM
I like both ideas, of course that may be moot because I'm not sure I'm returning next year.
Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:38 AM
Would the rookie farm system pretty much become extra bench spots? I mean would we keep the number of slots we got now, but then be adding in extra rookies?