Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
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!
Photo

Season VI NFF Issues/Discussion Topics


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#26
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
Ugh. No! Three RBs?!? No, no, no. Please.

#27
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,240 posts
2 RBs, 2 WRs, and 1 Flex. That's the standard default in just about every league I've ever seen.

#28
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
Well, either you're exaggerating quite a bit or you need to see more fantasy leagues. I've played in many different leagues over the last 20+ years and I recall only one of them actually being set up that way. It's hardly the standard. Regardless, I hate the idea of having 3 RB slots considerably. It sets up further imbalance in the league between the "haves" and the "have nots", where there's simply not enough depth at that key position for everyone to have 3 quality guys. Furthermore, it's a formation almost never seen in an NFL game, so there's no legitimate case to be made for its "realism".
  • Exodus +1 this

#29
Ashaman

Ashaman

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,634 posts
Am I missing something?

Lucas is how I see a lot of leagues I've been in, well sort of. Most leagues I've been in has been

QB
RB
RB
WR
WR
TE
WR/TE (sometimes RB too)
K
D

It's not that bad of a format, and really plays well during bye weeks.

#30
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
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.

#31
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts

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.

#32
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
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.

#33
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts

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.

Yeah, same here.

#34
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
Rock, any thoughts on adding TE to the current flex position?

#35
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,240 posts
how the **** does a WR/TE position make more sense than a RB/WR/TE position? Your logic (or lack thereof) baffles me. If you add a position in a 12 team league, you need to keep the talent pool as deep as possible. Why would you eliminate rbs?

#36
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
Are you talking to me? Because my logic was pretty clear as to why I'm against a 3rd RB slot. So other than quoting myself, there's not much else to say. And as I also already said, I don't want to add another spot.

#37
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
On a side note, Gar, I like you and consider you a friend, but I have to say that lately I've noticed both here and on Facebook that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, being illogical, has no case, etc., etc. and it gets kind of old fast. You are a smart guy with a generally logical approach to things, but so are plenty of other people. Yours is not automatically the best way or the right opinion (a key component of opinion questions being that there is no "right" answer). There is plenty of room for all sorts of different ideas, opinions, and views. That's sort of the point of this thread, isn't it?

#38
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts
I'm in the camp of leaving the lineups just the way they are. But if we changed the RB/WR to RB/WR/TE, I wouldn't care. After the top five TE's are gone, it's all crap anyway. Can't see myself starting a second TE over a RB or WR.

Adding a second RB Slot wouldn't be completely horrible, but like I said I would rather we didn't touch it.

#39
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts

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.

#40
groove terminator

groove terminator

    There are two rules for success: 1.) Don't tell all you know

  • Members
  • 2,915 posts
it is easy to adjust to whatever set of settings the league wants in my view

#41
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts

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...

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.

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.

#42
Darth Irish

Darth Irish

    Daily, nightly, and ever so rightly.

  • Member
  • 14,874 posts

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.

#43
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts
I hate the new IR rules this year. In past years if a player was "O" one week, you could put them on IR and leave them there even after they got completely healthy. In a way, it was like having an extra roster spot, so I get why this was changed. It's not fair to have a player injured one week and then you can carry him 6 weeks until someone else gets injured and then finally bring him back out. We have roster limits for a reason.

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.

#44
groove terminator

groove terminator

    There are two rules for success: 1.) Don't tell all you know

  • Members
  • 2,915 posts
its an espn thing that cant be changed unfortunately bud

#45
Darth Irish

Darth Irish

    Daily, nightly, and ever so rightly.

  • Member
  • 14,874 posts
First topics for the offseason: expanded starting rosters and rookie farm system.

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.

Any thoughts?

#46
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts
I'm not a big fan of the rookie farm idea, but I'm on board for adding a RB to the starting lineup. I like drafting rookies in the real draft because it presents a risk...do I take a gamble on an unknown this early or do i get someone established?

#47
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,240 posts
Keep in mind that you can still select rookies in the regular draft- the rookie draft would just be for those guys no selected.

I like both ideas, of course that may be moot because I'm not sure I'm returning next year.

#48
Ashaman

Ashaman

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,634 posts
Mind if I ask why you may not be back? That would suck, but I get real life is more important.

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?