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

2014 NFF Off-Season


13 replies to this topic

#1
Darth Irish

Darth Irish

    Daily, nightly, and ever so rightly.

  • Member
  • 14,874 posts

Hard to believe, but come draft time in July/August, we will be concluding the first decade of the NFF.

 

Here is our offseason thread as we move into the 10th year. Of note, it has been 3 years since we instituted the rookie keeper/PS eligibility, so the list of rookies losing their eligibility is below.

 

Of note, I still think the rosters need to be modified to remove a bench player and add one active roster spot given the number of players on rosters/PS throughout the league. Any other modifications, changes, etc. can be posted here.

 

Rookies losing eligibility:

 

MaChamps: Bobby Rainey

 

The Jokers still have Landry Jones on their PS, though he is not on an NFL roster.

 

(Guess there was less than I thought).

 

 



#2
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,237 posts

This is what I'd like to see the rosters look like

 

QB

RB

WR

WR

WR/TE

FLEX

D/ST

K



#3
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts

So, you're saying you could play a roster without a single TE?



#4
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,237 posts

Precisely.



#5
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts

:nono:



#6
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,237 posts

Roster flexibility is a fantasy league's greatest asset. It becomes stale when every roster is constructed the exact same way. This allows many variations in how an owner chooses to construct a team. This type of construction comes closest to allowing you to put your "best team" on the field. It works great.



#7
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts

I still like making everyone find at least ONE tight end to play.



#8
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts
I'm with you on that one. Of course I run
the consistently worst franchise so what the **** do I know.

#9
Darth Irish

Darth Irish

    Daily, nightly, and ever so rightly.

  • Member
  • 14,874 posts
My thought is that it should either be a Flex or RB only spot. I like having the TE spot as it awards good management or penalizes teams like me who refuse to draft a TE until the 10th round
  • Rock +1 this

#10
Rock

Rock

    Self High-Five

  • Member
  • 38,702 posts

Drafting good Tight End's has served me well for years.  Hell, I kept one last season which I think it was a first for our league.



#11
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,237 posts

Keeping a TE has happened many times before.

 I like having the TE spot as it awards good management

How exactly?

 

Open up the rosters for the most roster flexibility and there are a myriad of strategies available for building a team. Finding the best one is good management. Being forced to play a tight end has nothing to do with management. Building the best possible team is what you should be aiming to do. There are about 4 worth-while tight ends every year. Less than 3.5 points per game separated tight-ends 5 through 20 this year. The same margin was the difference from 4 through 18 last year. Look at the most common personnel groupings in NFL games. There isn't one that can't be utilized by this lineup.

 

It's absolutely absurd to be forced to play a tight end if you have better options elsewhere. In the NFL if I wanted to line up 4 wide (receivers) with a single back every single time, I could. Tight ends have no functional difference from a wide receiver other than that they (most often) line up on the line. There's no reason they should be treated as entirely different entities.



#12
Ashaman

Ashaman

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,634 posts

I can actually get behind this Lucas much more than I can adding a 2nd RB spot. In fact I am all for this as plenty of times (granted my team sucked due to my inability to stop running Matty "Pick 6" Ryan) I feel if I could have gone with a 3rd/4th WR instead of a TE and maybe been in several more games or even maybe..won? I think that's the opposite of lost.

 

Also DI, I think Lattimore for me is up on his being eligible though I don't see me wanting to actually keep him. And why did Rainey get an extra year on being on the PS? He was in the NFL in 2012 while Landry Jones came into the league in 2013? Or did I get that wrong? Probably, I'm super sick



#13
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts

I hate to say it but Lucas has convinced me. I think the tight ends should be interchangeable with the wide receivers, you can start either a TE or a WR in the "WR" slots.  I've always been a traditionalist but the damning stat that only 3-4 tight ends are actually worth having any particular year means each season that many teams have a built in advantage over the rest of the league.  I'd be interested to see if teams having those coveted TEs usually make the playoffs and go deep into them.



#14
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,237 posts

I'm perfectly fine leaving things as they are- but if we are going to make a change that's the one I would propose, personally.

 

I like our starting roster size, I don't feel like adding a spot is necessary. And if it became clear that we were adding a starting position I would advocate heavily for another keeper slot to go with it.

 

I do think our bench size might be too much- but I can go either way on that. A huge bench really rewards good drafting.

 

Too often fantasy seasons hinge on random waiver wire pickups because someone "got there first." I think we should overhaul that system yet again. There should be some sort of strategy involved in waiver wire pickups more than "oh he scored a lot last week and I'm the first one here." I'm going to do some research for some different ways to approach that.





Reply to this topic