F13 2013/2014 Fantasy Football League

[Phildo]

I passed up the chance to keep Moreno early in the season, figuring the platoon would hurt his value too much.  Whoops!

[Paelos]

Thank god in the primary league we only have 1RB slot.   This  season is exactly why I don't like 2RBs in 12 man leagues.

With the way the NFL plays now, I think having 2 RB slots is just irresponsible. There are 9 guys in the league who have over 600 yards on the ground this year so far. After that? It's a marked falloff as the next 20 guys range from 565 down to 388 yards. Meanwhile, there are 22 guys with over 600 yards receiving, and 40 guys with 500+ yards.

[Yegolev]

I'll share my observation that there are approximately ten people in the entire NFL that are worth a shit.

[Paelos]

I'll share my observation that there are approximately ten people in the entire NFL that are worth a shit.

Do you own any of them? Because I don't in the varsity league this year.

[Nevermore]

Thank god in the primary league we only have 1RB slot.   This  season is exactly why I don't like 2RBs in 12 man leagues.

With the way the NFL plays now, I think having 2 RB slots is just irresponsible. There are 9 guys in the league who have over 600 yards on the ground this year so far. After that? It's a marked falloff as the next 20 guys range from 565 down to 388 yards. Meanwhile, there are 22 guys with over 600 yards receiving, and 40 guys with 500+ yards.

When evaluating running backs for fantasy it's better to look at total yards, not just rushing yards.  As of today, 7 of the top 10 players in yards from scrimmage are running backs.  Those with 600+ total yards from scrimmage breaks down as: 21 RBs, 20 WRs, 3 TEs (Cameron has exactly 600 so I included him).

The moral of the story is that RBs can catch passes, too.

[Paelos]

Yeah that's a good point, but then we're evaluating them as receivers. Which at that point, why even lock people into picking RBs? Just put a flex in there.

[Ingmar]

Thank god in the primary league we only have 1RB slot.   This  season is exactly why I don't like 2RBs in 12 man leagues.

With the way the NFL plays now, I think having 2 RB slots is just irresponsible. There are 9 guys in the league who have over 600 yards on the ground this year so far. After that? It's a marked falloff as the next 20 guys range from 565 down to 388 yards. Meanwhile, there are 22 guys with over 600 yards receiving, and 40 guys with 500+ yards.

2 RBs is fine, if your league is PPR.

EDIT: Oh hey I missed some thread.

[Nevermore]

Yeah that's a good point, but then we're evaluating them as receivers. Which at that point, why even lock people into picking RBs? Just put a flex in there.

I disagree that it's a good reason to get rid of a RB slot specifically.  Now a more interesting argument is to do away with all the WR, RB and TE slots altogether and just make them all flex. 

Fake edit for Ingmar: my league split the difference and went with .5 PPR.  I think a whole point for a catch is just too much because it overvalues a catch for just 1 or 2 yards.  I'd love for there to be a setting where you don't get the PPR at all if a catch goes for no gain or negative yards.  It annoys me when someone gets a catch for -2 yards and still ends up with positive points.

[sickrubik]

Even in a 1PPR league, a reception for -2 yards would still be negative points. The PPR would only "negate" one of those negative yards.

2 RB slots is fine, it just relies on depth and scouting deeper backs.

A RB in an RB slot still gets receiving yard points. I'm really not sure I understand the problem here.

The general point to the basic structure of fantasy teams is to somewhat follow what a common offense setup would look like. And the split-back/pro set formation includes both an RB and HB.

[Segoris]

Yeah that's a good point, but then we're evaluating them as receivers. Which at that point, why even lock people into picking RBs? Just put a flex in there.

For the challenge is my guess. That is based on comparison with the 12-team non-ppr league with no flex spots where there's yet to be a team over 1000, and only 5 teams over 900 right now. Compare to JV/V leagues which are miles ahead (partly due to PPR, but not as much as one may think).

Fake edit: what Sickrubik said with roster depth.

Fake edit for Ingmar: my league split the difference and went with .5 PPR.  I think a whole point for a catch is just too much because it overvalues a catch for just 1 or 2 yards.  I'd love for there to be a setting where you don't get the PPR at all if a catch goes for no gain or negative yards.  It annoys me when someone gets a catch for -2 yards and still ends up with positive points.

While I agree, I do find the humor in it though. Edelman's 15 point effort for 13 receptions on 78 yards and 0 TDs was pretty awesome.  

Even in a 1PPR league, a reception for -2 yards would still be negative points. The PPR would only "negate" one of those negative yards.

2 RB slots is fine, it just relies on depth and scouting deeper backs.

A RB in an RB slot still gets receiving yard points. I'm really not sure I understand the problem here.

1ppr league for a -2yd reception would be +.8 if it's 10yards per point, or +.87 or something for 15yards per point.

[Nevermore]

Even in a 1PPR league, a reception for -2 yards would still be negative points. The PPR would only "negate" one of those negative yards.

2 RB slots is fine, it just relies on depth and scouting deeper backs.

A RB in an RB slot still gets receiving yard points. I'm really not sure I understand the problem here.

The general point to the basic structure of fantasy teams is to somewhat follow what a common offense setup would look like. And the split-back/pro set formation includes both an RB and HB.

In a 1 PPR league you'd get 1 point for the reception, then -.2 for losing two yards for a net gain of .8 points, assuming the standard 1 point per 10 yards.

I'm convinced that people who don't like two RBs slots just don't like it because running backs are more scarce than wide receivers.

[Paelos]

My problem with 2 RBs now in a deep league would be that so many backs split time, and the position has been so diminished in the NFL, there's nowhere near the position depth there to warrant two backs.

Unless it's in a PPR league, which I think are total horseshit anyway.

[HaemishM]

Two RB's would be a fucking nightmare. I'm not sure I could find 6 RB's in the entire league that I would count on for regular points, much less 24.

[sickrubik]

In depeer leagues and/or 2RB, you're not counting on 24 points per week.

it's challenging, but there are at least 32 starting RBs in the league. Not all of them are Jamaal Charles, but there are plenty of starting backs (or split time backs like BUF).

[Nevermore]

My problem with 2 RBs now in a deep league would be that so many backs split time, and the position has been so diminished in the NFL, there's nowhere near the position depth there to warrant two backs.

Unless it's in a PPR league, which I think are total horseshit anyway.

But every team is dealing with the same issue, so no one is at a handicap.  A team that decides to load up on running backs is using a valid strategy, but they'll be weak in other areas of their roster.  It's what makes the game interesting to me, trying to find that balance.

If you think RBs are bad, look at how many really good TEs there are compared to all the scrubs.  If the argument is that there aren't enough good running back to allocate two slots on every team, then I'd say there aren't enough good tight ends to have to force teams to start even one.

[Paelos]

I've made the argument against TE's before as well.

Just because it's level also doesn't mean it's fun. That's what I want out of this. A fun game with players we know. While deeper leagues may expose the better player, for the most part none of us have anything on the line but pride.

[MrHat]

It becomes a lot of research and hunches to see which guys are getting the carries and hoping who you think will get the TD does.

It's fun to have a lot of slots as you get to speculate on flyers.

Otherwise it ends up like my stud league - you're just disappointed because you constantly make the wrong choice of Stud to play.

[sickrubik]

That's true of any competitive game. Fantasy football may not be for you, just like a lot of shooters aren't for me. :P

What I love out of deeper leagues is that my knowledge of the game has increased exponentially the more I've gotten into FFL.

[Ingmar]

I like it because I can play every marginal Cal guy in the league and have it not be a disaster.

[MrHat]

That's true of any competitive game. Fantasy football may not be for you, just like a lot of shooters aren't for me. :P

What I love out of deeper leagues is that my knowledge of the game has increased exponentially the more I've gotten into FFL.

Same.

Maybe even more exponentially than you.

We'll find out this week:

[sickrubik]

Neither of those people is me.

[Nevermore]

That's true of any competitive game. Fantasy football may not be for you, just like a lot of shooters aren't for me. :P

What I love out of deeper leagues is that my knowledge of the game has increased exponentially the more I've gotten into FFL.

I'm in this camp.  I like finding those diamonds in the rough and then springing them on my unsuspecting opponents. 

I league where all you do is slot in studs would bore me to tears.

[Paelos]

Don't get me wrong. I'm usually good at these kinds of things. Hell I won last year, and this year I let auto-draft put me in a bad spot.

There's a fine line between having a stud league where it's all luck on who does well, and a deep league where you're constantly fighting who is quicker on the wire.

I just think the NFL is limiting the impact of most RBs, and as a result fantasy should limit their impact.

[Nevermore]

In a 12 team league, do you think that RBs #13-24 are worse than WRs #37-48?

[Paelos]

In a 12 team league, do you think that RBs #13-24 are worse than WRs #37-48?

At the end of the season, no. At the beginning of the season with projections we use to draft? Maybe. I feel you can go a lot deeper into receivers with more interesting results.

[Yegolev]

I'll share my observation that there are approximately ten people in the entire NFL that are worth a shit.

Do you own any of them? Because I don't in the varsity league this year.

Exactly one: Jamaal Charles

Check it:
QB - RGIII
WR - Andre Johnson
WR - Emmanuel Sanders
RB - Jamaal Charles
RB - Ben Tate
TE - Gronk
Flex - Sproles
Flex - Martellus Bennett
K - Matt Prater
D - Arizona
-------BENCH--------
Philip Rivers
James Jones
Terrance Williams
DeAndre Hopkins
Gostkowski
New England

I might start Hopkins but I haven't decided.  Anyway, that's a pretty up-and-down set of scores on that crew.  Except Charles.

Elsewhere, I'm starting RGIII this week since Rivers boned me last week and I'd have won if I sat him.  Also I suppose I believe the idea that Miami will do a better job of holding San Diego to a low score than Philly will do against Washington.

[shiznitz]

I've made the argument against TE's before as well.

I sympathize with the argument about not having a dedicated TE slot, but I do think it is one area where a knowledgeable FFL player can add value week to week.  I don't think that is as true when trying to pick which one of 3 RBs will happen to get the TD in any week on a RBBC team.

I think for our 12 man "varsity" league we have a decent roster format.  This is supported by the fact that the W-L spread across the league is usually pretty tight.

No one has raised it, but I hate non-PPR.  It just doesn't fit the way my brain evaluates players.  The same goes for 4pt TDs for QBs. 

[Nevermore]

In a 12 team league, do you think that RBs #13-24 are worse than WRs #37-48?

At the end of the season, no. At the beginning of the season with projections we use to draft? Maybe. I feel you can go a lot deeper into receivers with more interesting results.

So someone with too much time on their hands came up with a chart that I think proves my point that ditching a RB slot for another WR slot will not improve scoring.  The #13-24 RBs are at least as good as the #37-48 WRs.  Now RBs are a more scarce commodity and are more prone to injury which makes them harder to manage, sure.  But then I think the owner that can successfully navigate those waters should be rewarded.

The other thing that chart tells me is that whoever has Jimmy Graham is at a huge advantage over everyone else, but then that's not some new revelation.

[MrHat]

Neither of those people is me.

My biggest trash talk fail of the season.

[sickrubik]

apparently I need to point something out. I'm in the JV league as "Grover City Crows". Apparently at least three different people think I'm someone else. Each different.

Edit: Nothing to see here... move along.

[El Gallo]

I'm giving myself 10 extra points for Steve Smith's awesome postgame interview, so I won in my head.  http://instagram.com/p/g4ltqpiHNN/#

ICE UP, SON

[shiznitz]

I lost this week because of a trade. Grr.  I traded Jordy to my opponent for Harvin.  I still think Harvin will help me in the playoffs but ouch...

[Paelos]

I'm winning in Shiz's other league, but my run in Varsity is dead as a doornail. I need to draft for realz next time.

[HaemishM]

I think all my tinkering in the both leagues has killed me. Well, that and losing Rodgers in the JV league, and Mike Wallace being an utter bust.

[Paelos]

Colin Kaepernick is dead to me.