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!
2014 NFF League Meetings
Posted 01 January 2014 - 12:00 PM
I think the first topic I would like to discuss is to conform our starting rosters to a traditional FFL format, which would mean the addition of a RB spot. I have no idea why the rosters were set with only one RB. It was nearly 10 years ago when I set the league up. I think the addition, while conforming to the traditional FFL roster, allows for better roster flexibility, more strategy with keepers, and to award skill (or in UKLK's case, luck). This results in the active roster being as follows:
Based on the large number of bench spots, I think it would be easiest to just remove a bench spot and convert it to the new RB spot. Let me know what everyone thinks.
Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:57 PM
No, Dex, we just talked about it all on FB without you. That's what you get for being a stubborn ol' coot.
(J/K...mostly. There was squabbling about this proposal in a FB discussion once, but mostly I think people have just been busy. I didn't even see this thread until now, myself.)
Posted 26 June 2014 - 04:39 PM
- rewards draft strategy too highly over week to week management of team
- removes another set of decisions to make when setting your line up which takes away from the experience of actually managing a team.
- reduces the overall quality of the teams. If we add another RB slot then who is going to be sat on our benches? Cfl players?
-overexposure on bye weeks.
- we already have a flex spot that's good for another RB if you want to take that strategy.
Plus the rather poor reason of realism being reduced. Qb, RB, RB, RB(flex) WR, WR, TE ? It just seems like overloading for no reason. Our scores are high and we have some blowout games every couple of weeks. Why add more?
Okay that wasn't so concise but it's late and I am in work in 6.5 hours..... :/
Posted 26 June 2014 - 09:46 PM
I think UK makes some strong points, actually, even though I've always been 100% "give us the second running back" guy. I still want the second RB because I think the flex is more because we have SO MANY great receivers out there rotting on benches and most real teams have two RBs and 3 receivers who contribute in a game. So my opinion hasn't changed, but I do want to acknowledge that UK presented a cogent argument.
Posted 28 June 2014 - 04:50 PM
Ah okay let's just not have a bench at all and just add up the total from every player we have on our rosters.....
Yeah you guys are right, let's keep 15 bench spots and waste a ton of playable talent from week to week.
Thanks for completely ignoring the points I raised though. I thought this thread was for discussion and debate, not just making smart ass comments in order to denigrate the other persons position on an issue. After all this is an Internet forum, not congress.