Arodin

Members
  • Content count

    3,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,428 Excellent

About Arodin

  1. League size is huge...I thought these polls assumed a 12-team standard. Get up to 16-teams, and QBs start to earn ADPs in line with many superflexes. Positional scarcity bites hard at that point. So I do think a 10-team assumption would lower QB value noticably. I'd easily take Guice here over a QB in a 10-teamer.
  2. I assumed standard for 2QB and TEpremium since not specified. I think Bia acknowledged that would be an unavoidable complication. I agree with you on Guice in standard, RoJo in ppr. I think the deep and top-heavy RB group may bring the QBs into play as early as 1.2 in 2QB leagues though. Same argument is used to advocate letting RBs slip in the real draft: easier than usual to get a good one later. I think in many years, Guice at 1.2 is as much a lock as Barkley at 1.1, but not necessarily in this draft.
  3. Not awful for a win-now team, but I'm pretty sure I prefer the rook I can get at 2.3 to Davis in most circumstances. Even in deep IDP, future 3rds aren't incredible value. If the team is contending, this is an easy price to pay for a potential weekly starter. If the team is in rebuild, of course, better to move CJ for what pick value can be had. This one could easily be a situational "win" for both squads.
  4. Personally I've always converted medal counts to a points system. I waffle between "gold 3, silver 2, bronze 1" or "gold 5, silver 3, bronze 1" but both always seemed like better metrics of country success than either of the other methods. Winning gold and winning bronze are not equal...no athlete believes that. So total count is silly. But winning bronze is still an achievement to be celebrated, so relegating it to tiebreaker status cheapens it, imo.
  5. Superflex league with deep rosters...not involved: Team A gets Pat Mahomes, late 3rd Team B gets 1.3, 2019 1st, 2019 3rd I haven't played in superflex, so would love to get the sense from those who do whether this is really in line with QB value in that format. Seems rich to me and my traditional format sensibilities...
  6. Bia's polls had one big edge over other rankings, though, in that you could see the distribution of votes, and know how many voters valued who else at each step. Gave a sense of how strong each "consensus pick" was and who you were most likely to see taken ahead in your own real draft, versus who was getting no traction yet. Looking at all the picks together, you could see where tier breaks clearly developed, and when new players first came onto the radar."
  7. Grammar nazis, chime in: does this sentence imply/infer that NASA has been around since the 19th century? Comma would be better placed after "Earth," makng the entire preceeding clause "according to NASA" and thus removing the ambiguity. The existing comma is unnecessary and should be removed. HTH.
  8. Hank, usually I appreciate your efforts to keep the Shark Pool clear of asst. coach clutter. It is much needed. In this case though, I think there is room for a thread like this. We have a "dynasty value discussion" thread where folks can throw out names and get rook or startup value estimates. It strays close to AC territory at times, but it is a focused discussion in one thread that has become one of the better ones on the board. We have had redraft variants near draft season as well, but the OP has a point that keeper leagues come with their own unique issues, not the least is the wide range of keeper rules. A place to discuss how keeper rules affect valuations seems ideally suited to the Shark Pool and one worth reading for me. And if discussion starters serve double duty because they come with league specific issues attached, that doesnt invalidate the value of strategic discussion on how those rules affect player values. For instance, @huthut's query about Fitz...he is nearly valueless in a full dynasty. He is a solid volume WR with a likely midround grade in redraft. How far down the redraft-to-dynasty continuum do we have to go before this value switches is something I'd enjoy seeing opinion on, and is more a SP than an AC topic, imo.
  9. How do you know Kyle Sloter's mother isn't an active Shark Pool participant? It's the internet...
  10. Thats true for rb, qb and te too though. Not unique to wr.
  11. Look back at your last twenty posts. Count up every one that is about another poster, rather than topical. Add in the ones that do nothing but mock the city of Cleveland. Add in half the ones that mock the Browns franchise in generic, non-constructive terms. (Only half becase hey, it's the Browns...they are hard not to mock sometimes.) If you had posted only what is left over, you would be considered a contributor to the conversation even when voicing a contrarian opinion.
  12. As a counter, the examples you provide include 6 missed field goals out of 36...a not very desirable miss rate. How many games those misses occurred in would have become wins for the team had they had a reliable kicker on the roster? The fact that people do not value kickers is not, a priori, evidence that kickers do not have value.
  13. This sounds like the real-football version of fantasy football's streaming QB debate. If I can sign various kickers as UDFAs and come close to the production generated by Janikowski early, then he was a wasted pick. On the other side is the argument that certainty and confidence in a position have value, but how much is difficult to quantify.
  14. Mania often manifests itself in the formation of grand plans, and a belief that one can accomplish amazing things. Long-range schemes like job changes to get rich are not uncommon. Impulsive spending or gambling is also not common. I don't thnk the airline ticket is that much of an obstacle, since a manic isn't likely to be carefully price shopping. And for someone as rich as Manziel, the limo is part of his normal course of life...not the unusual challenge it my be for you or me.
  15. Saw an article on player technology touting how they could tell where a player was at all times "to within 6 inches." Which sounds great, but got to thinking...if that's the level of precision they have now, it won't be useful at all in the ball for goalline plays. Plus or minus 6 inches on a goal line play is obvious enough that the refs get those right 99.9% of the time (the remaining 0.1% involving Testeverde's head). The plays we really want the tech for are more like plus or minus 2-3 inches. And where in the ball is the sensor? Probably not on the very tip, but in the middle. Which means the rules would have to change so that scoring is no longer "break the plane" but "push the middle of the ball across the line. Ugh. I love the idea of getting this done with tech rather than elderly eyes from meters away. But sounds like we need one more order of magnitude improvement in the technology itself before this can become reality.