Fantasy Football NFL

[Blades of Vanatar]

Well, many players do continue to play after getting a concussion. Steve Young has said that there were several games that he did not remember the second half of. As did many other QBs and RBs.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by ChickenIsGood

I think he was joking... You know, with concussions being serious and all.

Yeah, I was joking about him returning to the game. He just screwed my fantasy team over, so I was kind of ticked off. But Steve Slaton took over for him this week - zero points after fumbling and being taken out of the game. I still like that team, and even though they dropped to 4-4 with the loss this weekend, I look at the two losses as rather freak occurances. Westbrook is USUALLY good for at least four, and this week I'm down 20 with Colston playing tonight. If Slaton had a decent game this weekend, I'd be in reasonably good shape going into tonight. As it stands, I'll need two TDs from Colston to have a realistic shot of winning.

I'm still competitive in all three leagues. I'm not pleased with the 4-4 record in the one league, but I'm 5-3 in another league (also screwed by Slaton in the loss there) and 5-2-1 in the other.

[Blades of Vanatar]

I'm down 3 points going into tonight's game, with Brees and TG still to play. My opponent is done for the week, so my expectations of winning are pretty reasonable. This will move me to 3-5. Luckily, 2 teams at 5-2-1 hold the best record in our league. With winning this week, I move to a tied position of 5-6 slot. I still am close to potentially making the playoffs, I just need to slide up to the 4 spot. All of my byes are done, I just had enough players this week to make a roster after dropping W. Parker and Dallas's defense in order to add Crosby of GB to kick and S.Rice at Wr. But I will drop Crosby tomorrow and look for another RB. Though I doubt there is anyone worthy. One thing I have found funny in this league is that though we use 3 WRs and 2 RBs, most rosters are loaded with RBs and have minimal or only one extra WR. So there are a few WR out there to snag, including T.O. He has to break out at some point, even if for only a couple of games. He might be my next pickup.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

TO did score a TD this week - his first of the season IIRC. Only 40-something yards receiving on the day, but that's 10 points in standard scoring leagues which ain't bad.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Yep, I saw that he scored. I just hate the guy and really don't want him, but I will have to probably bite the bullet and take him. I was once offered a lucrative trade back in the day, that would of landed me Michael Irvin for basically backup players, but I passed. I just hated Irvin as a player. I lost that year in the playoffs in a close match. Irvin would of been the difference maker. Decisions, decisions.....

[ChickenIsGood]

Moving up to 5-3 with a victory over the first place team. I really don't think my team is that good though, but I really like the overall feel of them. McNabb/Flacco at QB, Turner and a committee, two solid WR and Wayne, Winslow, and rotating DST (Browns/Bucs/Rams opponent) and K.

Unique and flexible team for a 2RB, 3WR format. Really the only irreplaceable are Wayne and Turner.

[Saber]

Does no one here have Brady? If not, may I ask why you opted not to? He has been doing well every week (except the game against... I forget, but it was one of the losses).

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Saber

Does no one here have Brady? If not, may I ask why you opted not to? He has been doing well every week (except the game against... I forget, but it was one of the losses).

The issue is not whether we opted not to take him, the issue is only one team can have Brady. If you play in a 10-team league, nine of the owners won't have Brady, and in a 12-team league, 11 of the owners will not have Brady. It's not that anyone here thinks Brady is a bad pick - it's just that you don't get every single player you want. I also don't have Adrian Peterson, but it's not because I think he is a bad running back, and I also don't have Larry Fitzgerald, but it's not because I think he's a bad wide receiver.

In the 12-team league I'm in, Brady, Fitzgerald, and Peterson were all taken before I even had my first pick, so it's not like I decided against them - none of them were available as an option.

[Blades of Vanatar]

I opted for Brees over Brady. After coming off a season ending injury, I went with the safer pick. Both are having nice seasons, so no big deal for me. It's the RB position that I squandered at draft time. LT finally did something for me and Parker is a bust. Pitt is using RB by commitee this year. LJ is also still a bust and Stewart doesn't get enough carries, though I think he could be a star somewhere else.

[Saber]

In the 12-team league I'm in, Brady, Fitzgerald, and Peterson were all taken before I even had my first pick, so it's not like I decided against them - none of them were available as an option.

Ah, sorry, I was unclear - I know how the draft systems work, but it seemed since both of you were in multiple leagues, you might have had a chance to grab him. I was more referring to a situation like Blades', where he had the choice but opted not to.

[Blades of Vanatar]

It depends on the scoring system of the League. Some leagues are QB heavy, others are RB dominant. That completely changes the draft of each league. So it really depends on how the picks fall and who ends up as the available player when it's your turn to draft. Also your needs at the moment weigh in a bit too, though in the 1st or 2nd round, when Brady is usually picked, you don't have needs yet, your really looking for the Best player available. But for me, Brady wasn't the #1 QB. I liked Brees and Peyton over Brady. I believe I had Brady as #20 overall on my depth chart.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

A couple of more points here. In almost any fantasy football draft, there will be more running backs taken in the first couple of rounds than all other positions combined. The reason for this is simple supply and demand.

In the 12-team league I am in, we can start three running backs, but we can only start one quarterback. Therefore, there is a demand for at least 36 running backs, and just 12 quarterbacks.

Since there are 32 NFL teams, there are 32 available starting quarterbacks to pick from, and 32 starting running backs. As you can see, the supply of quarterbacks will always exceed demand, while the supply of running backs will always come up short.

This leads into my second point. If you wait until round 5 or 6 to pick a QB, you can still get a pretty good QB, but if you wait until round 5 or 6 to pick a RB, you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The dropoff in point production between a RB taken in round 1 or 2 compared to a RB taken in round 5 or 6 is far greater than the dropoff between a QB taken in round 1 or 2 compared to a QB taken in round 5 or 6.

Experience in fantasy football leads me to conclude that the guy who uses his first round pick on a QB is typically not the guy who wins the league.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Over the last couple of years that is true. But some years, there is a guy who has the monster year, like Brady a few years ago. Manning had a couple of those years, as did Favre(if not using the Ints as negative pts) and Elway. Also, it depends on the scoring system that is used. If your league has no negative pts in the scoring system, QBs get a little more tempting, as the good QBs can put up some pretty big numbers in a week that could pretty much carry your team. Plus, some leagues don't track receiving for RBs, which lowers their value as well. It all depends on the system that's implemented. But, over the last few yers, most league rules you'll find online are pretty much streamlined into a system that Aldeth's ideas fit in nicely with.

The original leagues I played in, going back 15 years, which weren't even online, they were local sports fans gathering at someone's house for the draft(and pizza and beer!) and leaving phone messages for weekly lineup changes, used 1 QB, 2 RBs, 3 WRs/TEs(which were combined as one position back then), 1 K and 1 Def/SpT. Or something similiar. No negative point categories in the scoring systems back then.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I agree with Blades. It does depend on the scoring system. All of my comments in my previous post were assuming a standard scoring league. 1 pt for every 10 yards rushing and receiving, 1 pt for every 25 yards passing, 6 points for a TD, and a loss of 2 pts for a turnover.

Based on a standard scoring system, QBs tend to score the most points over the course of a year. This is because a wide receiver or running back who scores 20 TDs has had not just a good year, but one of the best years of all time for a player at that position, whereas a QB who throws for 20 TDs in a season is merely considered average.

I do not know how experienced Saber is with fantasy football, but a common mistake among most new players is that they look at the previous year's point totals, see that QBs tend to score the most points, and from that conclude that it is wise to use your first pick on the best QB available.

This is not to say that a QB cannot lead your fantasy team to the promised land. If you spend your first pick on a QB, and that QB throws for 40 or more TDs in a season, you likely will have a very good year. It's just that it is very difficult to predict that kind of season. QBs like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees have all put up spectacular seasons in recent memory. But there was no way of knowing that they would have been *THAT* good going into the year. It is reasonable to predict a QB like Manning will throw 30 TDs in a season (which is very good), but that will only make him marginally better than a half dozen other QBs who will throw for 25 TDs.

And that's the key: You expect your first round pick to perform considerably better than others at his position. Because there are many QBs who will score a ton of points, it is very difficult to forecast that one particular QB will perform so much better than the others that can be acquired for a pick in round 4, 5, or 6.

[Blades of Vanatar]

T.O. Is now in my possession. This is their bye week, so hopefully next week Buffalo can get it together and actually score some offensive TDs. I think I will use him in the flex, if anytime will be a good time to do so, this is it.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I suppose my decisions are a bit easier this week. I still have to pick 3 starters out of Forte, Westbrook, Barber, and Slaton, but now that it appears that Slaton's role may be diminished in Houston, I have to go with the other three. I'm not particularly keen on continuing to start Steve Smith, as he seems to have cooled off the last few games. He's still catching passes, but no TDs. So I'll roll with Colston and Driver in that league.

The other league is even easier. Now that I'm through with all of my bye weeks in that league, I'll go with C. Johnson, Grant and Benson as my RBs, and Moss, VJax, and DJax as my WR, barring an injury, for the remainder of the season.

That leaves one last league where I admittedly have some issues. I also own Slaton in that league, but owing to injuries, I'm only carrying 4 RBs on my roster, and because of the byes this week, only three are available: DeAngelo Williams (@NO), Stewart (@NO), and Slaton (@IND). I can start all three if I want, but that would mean starting both Carolina backs. However, if I go with only two RBs (and it would be Stewart who I sit - Slaton is still going to get some work), then I need to start four WRs, and owing to bye weeks the four would have to be Colston (CAR), Marshall (PIT), Driver (@TB) and Breaston (@CHI). So really the decision comes down to whether I want Breaston or Stewart in my flex spot.

[Blades of Vanatar]

I like Stewart. That game should be a shoot out, with nice scoring potential for CAR for a change. The Bears defense is an enigma, but they have the potential to shut down any offense, so I would be weary to play Braeston.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Akers 50+ yard field goal at the end of the game gave me a win in one of my leagues last night. However, if I were an Eagle fan, I'd be pissed off at Reid's decision. How, with about 4 minutes to play holding no timeouts, in a situation where you need a TD, do you kick a FG, if you still need a TD after that? If you're down by 6, it makes sense, as then you only need a FG to tie. But if you needed a TD, and you still need a TD after kicking the FG, given that you're going to get a maximum one more chance (as it turned out Philly never even got the ball back), I do not think you're giving your team the best chance to win. Fortune favors the bold.

[ChickenIsGood]

Hines Ward's 44yd and TD's ended up nicking me by 2 points. Damn.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

The Steelers defensive TD actually gave me a win in one league. I went 3-0 in my fantasy leagues for just the second time all season. My records in the three leagues are as follows: 6-2-1 (second place, 0.5 GB), 6-3 (tied for second, 1 GB), 5-4 (technically third, as two teams are 6-3, 1 GB).

[Blades of Vanatar]

Another loss, basically knocking me out of contention. Yahoo took a big old crap on us and no one could drop/add since Thursday, also no one could change lineups. It stopped me from picking up Ryan Grant and Devery Henderson. I lost by 4. I would of won with them in my lineup, as LT and Boldin were terrible! The ruling was no changes for anyone on players and email your lineup in. I had 1st pick on the waiver wire, so I was screwed! Big Time. Since the commish is my nephew, he's got one big wedgie coming his way next time I see him!

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

Yahoo took a big old crap on us and no one could drop/add since Thursday, also no one could change lineups. It stopped me from picking up Ryan Grant and Devery Henderson.

Was that a league-specific issue? I use Yahoo for one of my leagues and I had no problems this week... WTH?

[Blades of Vanatar]

Yes, as my brother had no issues in his other 2 Yahoo leagues. But this is not my year, I am resigned to that fact. I played TG instead of Olsen yesterday and of course, Olsen pulls in 3 TDs. I played Stewart instead of Mendenhall, as I read the Steelers are weary of his fumbles, but Mendenhall comes up big and Stewart fumbles. Definitely not my year! But, I do look forward to being the spoiler....

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Yikes! Matt Schaub on a bye this week. Looks like I'm starting Alex Smith.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Do you get alot of negative categories, as in negative points for sacks, ints and fumbles? You might be better off leaving the QB slot blank.