Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Blue Thunder

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About Blue Thunder

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arlington, TX

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Los Angeles Chargers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,738 profile views
  1. I agree. You took the low end of my ranges for both Ekeler and Jackson, which won't happen. I was trying to offer ranges that would add up to 100%. You're probably right about not counting on much from Cox. I don't think we're too far apart, but I think 60% might be a little high for Ekeler. If I had to pick a specific number, barring any injuries, I would predict Ekeler - 50% Jackson - 35% Newsome - 15% I think that Newsome will get some decent work in the 4th quarter of any blowouts as well as taking a series from Jackson every once in a while. Any carries that Cox would get would be in a week (or two) that one of the other three guys is not playing due to being dinged up. Hopefully they all stay healthy all year, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. Ankle sprains tend to happen every once in a while. I can, however, see a scenario where Jackson out-touches Ekeler if even if both remain healthy... IF Jackson turns into a stud - which is certainly possible. I do think it more likely that Ekeler will out-touch Jackson, although I expect it to be closer than a lot of people think.
  2. Fair point. I do think that you could still arrive at something close to these percentages if one or two of them ever gets dinged up during the year. I think it also would depend on just how high they are on Jeremy Cox. I could just as easily see him on the practice squad as on the final 53. The main point I'm trying to make is that there is more to the Chargers RB corp than just Ekeler and Jackson and that I could easily see the RB work being split more evenly than some people are expecting.
  3. I really expect to see Detrez Newsome worked into the rotation as well. He's got some lead-back type of qualities. Also, Jeremy Cox will probably see some short yardage and goal line work. I'd expect to see a split along these lines. Ekeler 25 - 40% Jackson 25 - 40% Newsome 15 - 25% Cox 5 - 10% I think that this would work well IRL as it would keep everyone relatively fresh, but it wouldn't be that great for fantasy football though.
  4. Good point. This is probably why the owners are seemingly "locked in" to wanting an 18-game schedule in order to make the TV revenue pie just as big as possible. So if the owners really are all about maximizing the pie size, then 21 weeks with the three byes would be better than 19 weeks with one bye from their perspective.
  5. Just what I've been saying. The three evenly spaced bye weeks would benefit everyone regardless of whether teams play 16 or 18 games. In fact, it might be enough to convince owners to stay at 16 games per team due to the extra two weeks of regular season TV revenue. However, I just have a feeling from what I've been reading that they owners are stuck on an 18-game schedule and the best (only) way to accomplish that is more rest during the season. The three evenly spaced bye weeks what makes the most sense, imo. If they do decide to just add a 17th game and make it an international game, then I would think that the players would also still benefit from more time off during the season, both for traveling and recovering.
  6. None taken. I don't think that a proposal exists that every single person is going to like. Basically, it would push the Super Bowl back from the first Sunday in February two weeks to the third Sunday. Bye weeks are a crap shoot anyway, but if you had several spaced out, you'd have a better chance of having one when you really need one. Here's my suggestion... Bye weeks could be grouped like this: Group 1 = off weeks 4, 9, 14 Group 2 = off weeks 5, 10, 15 Group 3 = off weeks 6, 11, 16 Group 4 = off weeks 7, 12, 17 Group 5 = off weeks 8, 13, 18 No bye during weeks 1-3 and weeks 19-21 Currently, if a team has a bye week during week 4, they would then have 13 weeks in a row without a break. If they were in Group 1 above, the longest stretch they would have without a break would be 7 weeks. In fact, it would be 3 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games - break - 7 games. Looking at the other side of it, if a team currently has a week 12 bye, they have 11 games before then. If you have a week 12 bye (Group 4) in my proposal, you also have a week 7 and a week 17 bye, which would mean 6 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games - break - 4 games. Which scenario do you think would allow players to be more rested going into the playoffs? Seems obvious to me. If 18 games is an absolute MUST for the owners, then this plan makes the most sense to me. However... If they are willing to concede to the NFLPA and stay at 16 games, you could still do a 16-game, 19-week schedule with three evenly spaced byes. If you dropped to two preseason games, this would not increase the length of the season at all. Bye groupings would look like this... Group 1 = off weeks 5, 9, 13 Group 2 = off weeks 6, 10, 14 Group 3 = off weeks 7, 11, 15 Group 4 = off weeks 8, 12, 16 No bye during weeks 1-4 and weeks 17-19 You would still have the added advantage of more rest throughout the season and 19 weeks of regular season football instead of 17. Regardless of which plan you talk about (18 games or 16 games), I really think that the three evenly spaced byes is a good idea.
  7. Yes, the players would play all 18 games with no one having to sit out at all. That's why the three evenly spaced byes is an important part of it - for recovery time during the season. I think the whole "having to sit" thing is ridiculous and opens up so many issues that aren't really necessary. This would mean that players would make more because they're playing in 18 games, but so would the owners and the networks. Everyone would make more due to the bigger pie (21 weeks versus 17 weeks) that they would be getting from the networks. Expanding the rosters by a few spots would help with the overall team fatigue, especially due to the nature of specialization that is prevalent in the league now. Also, give more IR-Designated to Return spots. Since there would be a longer season, it would be more likely that players could return from their injuries. All the record books were thrown out in 1978 when the NFL went from 14 to 16 games, so I don't think that's too much of an issue.
  8. This was a big reason for my suggestion of a 21-week, 18-game season with three evenly spaced byes idea that I proposed earlier in this thread. More weeks means more money to split between the owners and players. Also, nobody has to sit out any games this way. Time wise the season would be two weeks longer with 2 preseason games and a 21-week season (23 weeks total), compared to the current model of 4 preseason games and a 17-week season (21 weeks total). However, with three byes instead of one, there is more recovery time (and travel time for international games) during the season to help players stay healthier - especially if those bye weeks are evenly spaced. I never did get a response from Goodell or the NFLPA from the detailed email I sent them (posted earlier on page 2 of this thread as well). I think that my entire plan solves all of the problems of an 18-game schedule and it expands the NFL brand, both foreign and domestically. Hopefully, they at least read it, but I won't hold my breath.
  9. Yeah, I figured as much. Just trying to see if there's anything there.
  10. Do you think that the release of Daniels, which saves 8.3M against the cap this year, signals the Packers possibly adding a significant contract, such as trading for Melvin Gordon? Just reading between the lines here and making a conjecture, but I thought I'd ask what you guys (Packers fans) thought. As a Chargers fan, I would obviously have some interest in this possibility.
  11. I just now sent this email to Roger Goodell (and forwarded it to the NFLPA as well). We'll see if they read it and respond. I figured it was worth a shot. Let me know what you guys think. A Detailed Plan For an 18-Game Season That Should Work For Everybody Mr. Goodell, I believe that I have a plan for the NFL schedule that could make all parties happy. Please indulge me by reading the entire email as I hope that you will find this to be true as well. Part A - Schedule length and bye weeks You could implement an 18-game, 21-week schedule with three evenly spaced byes during the season. Since the owners seem sold on an 18-game schedule with more traveling to neutral sites involved, it only makes sense for the players to have more time during the season to recover. If you cut the preseason to two games, then this would only add two weeks onto the end of the year time wise. Bye weeks could be grouped like this: Group 1 = off weeks 4, 9, 14 Group 2 = off weeks 5, 10, 15 Group 3 = off weeks 6, 11, 16 Group 4 = off weeks 7, 12, 17 Group 5 = off weeks 8, 13, 18 No bye during weeks 1-3 and weeks 19-21 Part B - How to determine the opponents for the two new games For the two new games, I recommend that you think regionally and create two non-conference “rivalry” games. One of the games would be an international rivalry game and the other would be a “hometown” rivalry game. The rival team match-ups would be the same from year to year, therefore building an actual rivalry between the two teams. Here’s an example… The Cowboys (NFC) two rivals would be the Texans (AFC) and the Chiefs (AFC). The Texans would also add the Saints as their second rival, the Saints add the Titans, etc. Alternate years between international and hometown games. I have added a list of my recommendation for the rivalries at the bottom of this email. Cowboys vs. Texans (in San Antonio year 1, Austin year 3, Waco year 5 and international in years 2, 4, and 6) Cowboys vs. Chiefs (in Norman year 2, Tulsa year 4, Stillwater year 6, and international in years 1, 3, and 5) If the Cowboys happen to be playing the AFC West in that year’s rotation, then they just play the Chiefs twice – or the Texans twice if they play the AFC South. Teams already play two games per year against their divisional opponents, so doubling up against their regional rival once each every four years shouldn’t be an issue. By utilizing college stadiums, you can truly make NFL fandom even more widespread and more regionally effective. Also, by using geographically close teams, many Cowboys fans that live in Dallas would be willing to drive a few hours to Austin or Norman to see their favorite team beat the hated Texans or Chiefs. Many fans in Austin or Norman would get the opportunity to see their favorite NFL team play in their hometown. Who wouldn’t like that? Imagine the Lions and Browns alternating games in Ann Arbor, Columbus, Canton, and East Lansing… the Saints and Titans alternating games in Baton Rouge, Knoxville, and Oxford… you could use anywhere from 2 to 4 host cities based on the realistic options located between the two teams. Part C - When to schedule the rivalry games This would mean that there would be 16 international games and 16 rivalry games each season. The three evenly spaced byes would make scheduling issues more easily solvable, especially if you use the Thursday night, Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Monday night time frames wisely. International games could be scheduled during the week before a bye, either on Sunday morning (Eastern hemisphere host city) or Sunday or Monday night (Western hemisphere host city) and regional rivalry games could be scheduled for Thursday nights after a bye in order to work around the college stadium that is being used, especially if you can’t find a week when that host college team is on the road. It sounds like a lot until you remember that each team is only affected twice and there are only 32 total games of this manner. If you schedule the 32 games during the fifteen bye weeks (weeks 4 through 18), that would mean that you would have three rivalry games for two weeks and two rivalry games for the other thirteen weeks. Which week is which would be left up to the availability of the venues that are being used. If scheduled efficiently, you would only have one week in which there would be two international games. This would also allow the beginning (Weeks 1-3) and end of the season (Weeks 19-21) to be used strictly for more conventional games as teams strive to get off to a fast start and/or finish the season strong. You could have two of the first three and two of the last three be divisional games with the other two divisional games somewhere towards the middle of the season, making all parts of the season (early, middle, and late) important. Part D - Positives for everyone The owners should like this as there would be more revenue being generated by both a longer TV contract (21 weeks versus 17) and a percentage of the extra gate money from the rivalry games, both regional and international. As things currently stand, due to the international games, there are always a couple of teams that only have seven true home games. This new schedule would even the playing field by allowing each team to keep their all eight of their home games and everyone is expected to travel internationally once a year. The players should like the three evenly spaced bye weeks, which would allow for more rest time during the season. Players that have a sprained ankle, for instance, would have more opportunities to let it heal instead of having to play injured and running the risk of aggravating the injury further. This could also lead to players having a longer career overall since they wouldn’t be playing injured as often. You could also allow more IR-Designated to Return slots as there would be a greater chance of return due to the longer season. If you expand the rosters by a few players to help with the longer season, this would create more jobs (making the players happy). Most of those added players would probably be playing for the league minimum, so it shouldn’t negatively affect the increased salary cap much (again making the owners happy). Players should see a general increase in compensation since they are playing 18 games now instead of 16 and they aren’t being arbitrarily forced to sit out for two of those games. No one needs to sit out at all if they don’t want to. The networks would be happy because a longer season means more football games, which means more ad revenue. Also, NFL games usually receive relatively high ratings, so more games means more frequently high ratings. The league would benefit from the popularity of being physically present in so many new markets (both foreign and domestic). That could mean a LOT of great things for the NFL. The fans would benefit from two more games from their favorite team and the opportunity to travel (both locally and abroad) twice a year to watch their team play in a different setting if they so desire. The smaller-market fans have a more realistic opportunity to see their relatively local NFL team play once a year in a city much nearer to them. I hope that you receive this email in the spirit that it was intended. I love football and the NFL and I want to help to see it be the most successful version of itself that it can be. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Blue Thunder (I used my real name here though) Team Rival #1 & Rival #2 Arizona = Denver & Houston Atlanta = Tennessee & Jacksonville Baltimore = Washington & Carolina Buffalo = Philadelphia & Detroit Carolina = Cincinnati & Baltimore Chicago = Indianapolis & Pittsburgh Cincinnati = Minnesota & Carolina Cleveland = Detroit & Green Bay Dallas = Houston & Kansas City Denver = Arizona & San Francisco Detroit = Cleveland & Buffalo Green Bay = Cleveland & Pittsburgh Houston = Dallas & Arizona Indianapolis = Chicago & Minnesota Jacksonville = Atlanta & Tampa Bay Kansas City = Seattle & Dallas Las Vegas = Seattle & LA Rams LA Chargers = LA Rams & San Francisco LA Rams = LA Chargers & Las Vegas Miami = New Orleans & Tampa Bay Minnesota = Indianapolis & Cincinnati New England = NY Giants & Philadelphia New Orleans = Miami & Tennessee NY Giants = NY Jets & New England NY Jets = NY Giants & Washington Philadelphia = New England & Buffalo Pittsburgh = Green Bay & Chicago San Francisco = Denver & LA Chargers Seattle = Kansas City & Las Vegas Tampa Bay = Jacksonville & Miami Tennessee = New Orleans & Atlanta Washington = Baltimore & NY Jets The list of rivals above isn't perfect. For instance, I would like to see the Eagles and Steelers as rivals, but this was the best overall geographic fit that I could come up with.
  12. I just now sent this email to Roger Goodell (and forwarded it to the NFLPA as well). We'll see if they read it and respond. I figured it was worth a shot. Let me know what you guys think. A Detailed Plan For an 18-Game Season That Should Work For Everybody Mr. Goodell, I believe that I have a plan for the NFL schedule that could make all parties happy. Please indulge me by reading the entire email as I hope that you will find this to be true as well. Part A - Schedule length and bye weeks You could implement an 18-game, 21-week schedule with three evenly spaced byes during the season. Since the owners seem sold on an 18-game schedule with more traveling to neutral sites involved, it only makes sense for the players to have more time during the season to recover. If you cut the preseason to two games, then this would only add two weeks onto the end of the year time wise. Bye weeks could be grouped like this: Group 1 = off weeks 4, 9, 14 Group 2 = off weeks 5, 10, 15 Group 3 = off weeks 6, 11, 16 Group 4 = off weeks 7, 12, 17 Group 5 = off weeks 8, 13, 18 No bye during weeks 1-3 and weeks 19-21 Part B - How to determine the opponents for the two new games For the two new games, I recommend that you think regionally and create two non-conference “rivalry” games. One of the games would be an international rivalry game and the other would be a “hometown” rivalry game. The rival team match-ups would be the same from year to year, therefore building an actual rivalry between the two teams. Here’s an example… The Cowboys (NFC) two rivals would be the Texans (AFC) and the Chiefs (AFC). The Texans would also add the Saints as their second rival, the Saints add the Titans, etc. Alternate years between international and hometown games. I have added a list of my recommendation for the rivalries at the bottom of this email. Cowboys vs. Texans (in San Antonio year 1, Austin year 3, Waco year 5 and international in years 2, 4, and 6) Cowboys vs. Chiefs (in Norman year 2, Tulsa year 4, Stillwater year 6, and international in years 1, 3, and 5) If the Cowboys happen to be playing the AFC West in that year’s rotation, then they just play the Chiefs twice – or the Texans twice if they play the AFC South. Teams already play two games per year against their divisional opponents, so doubling up against their regional rival once each every four years shouldn’t be an issue. By utilizing college stadiums, you can truly make NFL fandom even more widespread and more regionally effective. Also, by using geographically close teams, many Cowboys fans that live in Dallas would be willing to drive a few hours to Austin or Norman to see their favorite team beat the hated Texans or Chiefs. Many fans in Austin or Norman would get the opportunity to see their favorite NFL team play in their hometown. Who wouldn’t like that? Imagine the Lions and Browns alternating games in Ann Arbor, Columbus, Canton, and East Lansing… the Saints and Titans alternating games in Baton Rouge, Knoxville, and Oxford… you could use anywhere from 2 to 4 host cities based on the realistic options located between the two teams. Part C - When to schedule the rivalry games This would mean that there would be 16 international games and 16 rivalry games each season. The three evenly spaced byes would make scheduling issues more easily solvable, especially if you use the Thursday night, Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Monday night time frames wisely. International games could be scheduled during the week before a bye, either on Sunday morning (Eastern hemisphere host city) or Sunday or Monday night (Western hemisphere host city) and regional rivalry games could be scheduled for Thursday nights after a bye in order to work around the college stadium that is being used, especially if you can’t find a week when that host college team is on the road. It sounds like a lot until you remember that each team is only affected twice and there are only 32 total games of this manner. If you schedule the 32 games during the fifteen bye weeks (weeks 4 through 18), that would mean that you would have three rivalry games for two weeks and two rivalry games for the other thirteen weeks. Which week is which would be left up to the availability of the venues that are being used. If scheduled efficiently, you would only have one week in which there would be two international games. This would also allow the beginning (Weeks 1-3) and end of the season (Weeks 19-21) to be used strictly for more conventional games as teams strive to get off to a fast start and/or finish the season strong. You could have two of the first three and two of the last three be divisional games with the other two divisional games somewhere towards the middle of the season, making all parts of the season (early, middle, and late) important. Part D - Positives for everyone The owners should like this as there would be more revenue being generated by both a longer TV contract (21 weeks versus 17) and a percentage of the extra gate money from the rivalry games, both regional and international. As things currently stand, due to the international games, there are always a couple of teams that only have seven true home games. This new schedule would even the playing field by allowing each team to keep their all eight of their home games and everyone is expected to travel internationally once a year. The players should like the three evenly spaced bye weeks, which would allow for more rest time during the season. Players that have a sprained ankle, for instance, would have more opportunities to let it heal instead of having to play injured and running the risk of aggravating the injury further. This could also lead to players having a longer career overall since they wouldn’t be playing injured as often. You could also allow more IR-Designated to Return slots as there would be a greater chance of return due to the longer season. If you expand the rosters by a few players to help with the longer season, this would create more jobs (making the players happy). Most of those added players would probably be playing for the league minimum, so it shouldn’t negatively affect the increased salary cap much (again making the owners happy). Players should see a general increase in compensation since they are playing 18 games now instead of 16 and they aren’t being arbitrarily forced to sit out for two of those games. No one needs to sit out at all if they don’t want to. The networks would be happy because a longer season means more football games, which means more ad revenue. Also, NFL games usually receive relatively high ratings, so more games means more frequently high ratings. The league would benefit from the popularity of being physically present in so many new markets (both foreign and domestic). That could mean a LOT of great things for the NFL. The fans would benefit from two more games from their favorite team and the opportunity to travel (both locally and abroad) twice a year to watch their team play in a different setting if they so desire. The smaller-market fans have a more realistic opportunity to see their relatively local NFL team play once a year in a city much nearer to them. I hope that you receive this email in the spirit that it was intended. I love football and the NFL and I want to help to see it be the most successful version of itself that it can be. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Blue Thunder (I used my real name here though) Team Rival #1 & Rival #2 Arizona = Denver & Houston Atlanta = Tennessee & Jacksonville Baltimore = Washington & Carolina Buffalo = Philadelphia & Detroit Carolina = Cincinnati & Baltimore Chicago = Indianapolis & Pittsburgh Cincinnati = Minnesota & Carolina Cleveland = Detroit & Green Bay Dallas = Houston & Kansas City Denver = Arizona & San Francisco Detroit = Cleveland & Buffalo Green Bay = Cleveland & Pittsburgh Houston = Dallas & Arizona Indianapolis = Chicago & Minnesota Jacksonville = Atlanta & Tampa Bay Kansas City = Seattle & Dallas Las Vegas = Seattle & LA Rams LA Chargers = LA Rams & San Francisco LA Rams = LA Chargers & Las Vegas Miami = New Orleans & Tampa Bay Minnesota = Indianapolis & Cincinnati New England = NY Giants & Philadelphia New Orleans = Miami & Tennessee NY Giants = NY Jets & New England NY Jets = NY Giants & Washington Philadelphia = New England & Buffalo Pittsburgh = Green Bay & Chicago San Francisco = Denver & LA Chargers Seattle = Kansas City & Las Vegas Tampa Bay = Jacksonville & Miami Tennessee = New Orleans & Atlanta Washington = Baltimore & NY Jets The list of rivals above isn't perfect. For instance, I would like to see the Eagles and Steelers as rivals, but this was the best overall geographic fit that I could come up with.
  13. Yeah, but that was a different era in sports, relatively speaking. TV money was nowhere near what it is today and "bigger is better" in the owner's eyes. More money = happy owners. Plus, this is less demanding physically on the players than the current design. By allowing time during the season to heal from the everyday wear and tear, you could actually be extending careers and probably lessening the severity of some of those injuries that can occur throughout the season (i.e. playing on a sprained ankle and making it worse, etc.) Expand the rosters by a few players and that also makes the players' union happy (more jobs). Most of those new jobs would be players getting the league minimum, so the ever-growing salary cap shouldn't be affected negatively by the larger roster size. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution (nothing is), but it's a lot better than anything else I've seen proposed.
  14. A 16-game, 19-week season with three evenly spaced bye weeks solves all of these problems. More TV money from the longer season, players play the same number of games and get more rest throughout the season, and you aren't forced to sit any players if you don't want to. ETA: And you get the added benefit of cutting the preseason to two weeks to make it fit in the same time frame, so you'd have less opportunities for injuries in meaningless preseason games.
  15. All of this is why I like the idea I listed above, a 16-game, 19-week schedule with three evenly spaced bye weeks. No having to sit players for this week or tanking that week's game is needed. Owner's get the extra TV revenue of a longer season and players still only have to play 16 games and also get some scheduled built-in rest during the season as well. Win-win.