Backup player rule (for game time decisions) (1 Viewer)

[mac daddy]

I know some of you will say the game time decision is part of the game, but sometimes no amount of research or preparation will help you make good decisions, especially with teams wanting to hide injuries from each other and players "testing" their injuries during pregame warmups. FF has enough luck to it, we felt this took a little of the luck/guess factor away. My league put this rule in a few years ago, and it has worked very well (and as commish, I actually had to use it three times this week, normally I don't use it very often). When submitting their lineup, for each position each owner can add one "backup" player. If one of the starters does not play AT ALL in the game (is shown as inactive or "did not play" on nfl.com's gamebook), then the backup is inserted in the starting lineup.

This allows people to start someone that is questionable, and if they don't end out dressing, they are replaced. If a player doesn't play, that owner is responsible for alerting his opponent and the commish of the situation, and the commish doublechecks on nfl.com. Obviously, the backup player is picked when the starting lineup is picked, not after the starter doesn't play.

I thought I would post it here to see if anyone would want to think about it for your league, especially after nights like last night. We actually require our lineups to be in Sat at midnight, so owners can't make changes at the last second. (I know we could change that, but there are some issues there).

 

[BertJones]

I know some of you will say the game time decision is part of the game, but sometimes no amount of research or preparation will help you make good decisions, especially with teams wanting to hide injuries from each other and players "testing" their injuries during pregame warmups. FF has enough luck to it, we felt this took a little of the luck/guess factor away. My league put this rule in a few years ago, and it has worked very well (and as commish, I actually had to use it three times this week, normally I don't use it very often). When submitting their lineup, for each position each owner can add one "backup" player. If one of the starters does not play AT ALL in the game (is shown as inactive or "did not play" on nfl.com's gamebook), then the backup is inserted in the starting lineup. This allows people to start someone that is questionable, and if they don't end out dressing, they are replaced. If a player doesn't play, that owner is responsible for alerting his opponent and the commish of the situation, and the commish doublechecks on nfl.com. Obviously, the backup player is picked when the starting lineup is picked, not after the starter doesn't play.I thought I would post it here to see if anyone would want to think about it for your league, especially after nights like last night. We actually require our lineups to be in Sat at midnight, so owners can't make changes at the last second. (I know we could change that, but there are some issues there).

I guess it would depend on what kind of league you are in; a high stakes league or a league with your Mom in it! IMHO, players being out are part of the game. You know the risks when you draft injury prone players and have to plan accordingly. It especially gets hairy when the player in question doesn't play Sunday at 1pm and you have to make a decision, but again, it's part of the game. For the same reasons I am against Team QB.This is why injury prone like Westbrook or players with various off the field issues fall in the draft; you have to way the risks before you draft him. If people thought Westbrook would play 16 games, he would easily be a top 10-12 draft pick. But he falls due to the risk of something like last night happening.

 

[pizzatyme]

I know some of you will say the game time decision is part of the game, but sometimes no amount of research or preparation will help you make good decisions, especially with teams wanting to hide injuries from each other and players "testing" their injuries during pregame warmups. FF has enough luck to it, we felt this took a little of the luck/guess factor away. My league put this rule in a few years ago, and it has worked very well (and as commish, I actually had to use it three times this week, normally I don't use it very often). When submitting their lineup, for each position each owner can add one "backup" player. If one of the starters does not play AT ALL in the game (is shown as inactive or "did not play" on nfl.com's gamebook), then the backup is inserted in the starting lineup. This allows people to start someone that is questionable, and if they don't end out dressing, they are replaced. If a player doesn't play, that owner is responsible for alerting his opponent and the commish of the situation, and the commish doublechecks on nfl.com. Obviously, the backup player is picked when the starting lineup is picked, not after the starter doesn't play.I thought I would post it here to see if anyone would want to think about it for your league, especially after nights like last night. We actually require our lineups to be in Sat at midnight, so owners can't make changes at the last second. (I know we could change that, but there are some issues there).

I guess it would depend on what kind of league you are in; a high stakes league or a league with your Mom in it! IMHO, players being out are part of the game. You know the risks when you draft injury prone players and have to plan accordingly. It especially gets hairy when the player in question doesn't play Sunday at 1pm and you have to make a decision, but again, it's part of the game. For the same reasons I am against Team QB.This is why injury prone like Westbrook or players with various off the field issues fall in the draft; you have to way the risks before you draft him. If people thought Westbrook would play 16 games, he would easily be a top 10-12 draft pick. But he falls due to the risk of something like last night happening.

I think that is bunk! GTD are just not fair to any fantasy owner. You can adjust for "injury prone" players all you want. This is different than a GTD. I think it is only fair to offer a "First-in Reserve" at each position you have available.This way you can be rewarded for drafting a team, and having depth, JUST LIKE THE REAL GAME!Isn't fantasy football supposed to be like the real game?Otherwise, when the Packers scratched Green last night, they should not be allowed to have a RB play, period! That is rediculous.

 

[Dt's Mules]

i don't like the rule.

A good team should have enough depth to stay away from the situation altogether.

Disclaimer: I am in the league he is talking about.

 

[pizzatyme]

i don't like the rule.A good team should have enough depth to stay away from the situation altogether.Disclaimer: I am in the league he is talking about.

Depth should only have to be called upon when your best option CAN'T go, not when he MIGHT NOT go.That is the difference!

 

[Mario Kart]

I guess it would depend on what kind of league you are in; a high stakes league or a league with your Mom in it! IMHO, players being out are part of the game. You know the risks when you draft injury prone players and have to plan accordingly. It especially gets hairy when the player in question doesn't play Sunday at 1pm and you have to make a decision, but again, it's part of the game. For the same reasons I am against Team QB.This is why injury prone like Westbrook or players with various off the field issues fall in the draft; you have to way the risks before you draft him. If people thought Westbrook would play 16 games, he would easily be a top 10-12 draft pick. But he falls due to the risk of something like last night happening.

There would be absolutely no correalation between the two instances you are using for your comparison. Late scratches do not equal and will never equal "injury prone" players.

 

[harryhood]

I know some of you will say the game time decision is part of the game, but sometimes no amount of research or preparation will help you make good decisions, especially with teams wanting to hide injuries from each other and players "testing" their injuries during pregame warmups. FF has enough luck to it, we felt this took a little of the luck/guess factor away. My league put this rule in a few years ago, and it has worked very well (and as commish, I actually had to use it three times this week, normally I don't use it very often). When submitting their lineup, for each position each owner can add one "backup" player. If one of the starters does not play AT ALL in the game (is shown as inactive or "did not play" on nfl.com's gamebook), then the backup is inserted in the starting lineup. This allows people to start someone that is questionable, and if they don't end out dressing, they are replaced. If a player doesn't play, that owner is responsible for alerting his opponent and the commish of the situation, and the commish doublechecks on nfl.com. Obviously, the backup player is picked when the starting lineup is picked, not after the starter doesn't play.I thought I would post it here to see if anyone would want to think about it for your league, especially after nights like last night. We actually require our lineups to be in Sat at midnight, so owners can't make changes at the last second. (I know we could change that, but there are some issues there).

I guess it would depend on what kind of league you are in; a high stakes league or a league with your Mom in it! IMHO, players being out are part of the game. You know the risks when you draft injury prone players and have to plan accordingly. It especially gets hairy when the player in question doesn't play Sunday at 1pm and you have to make a decision, but again, it's part of the game. For the same reasons I am against Team QB.This is why injury prone like Westbrook or players with various off the field issues fall in the draft; you have to way the risks before you draft him. If people thought Westbrook would play 16 games, he would easily be a top 10-12 draft pick. But he falls due to the risk of something like last night happening.

I think that is bunk! GTD are just not fair to any fantasy owner. You can adjust for "injury prone" players all you want. This is different than a GTD. I think it is only fair to offer a "First-in Reserve" at each position you have available.This way you can be rewarded for drafting a team, and having depth, JUST LIKE THE REAL GAME!Isn't fantasy football supposed to be like the real game?Otherwise, when the Packers scratched Green last night, they should not be allowed to have a RB play, period! That is rediculous.

It isn't "bunk" in my opinion. Sorry for the newsflash but Fantasy football is not like the NFL nor is it going to imitate it. If it was then the only thing that should count is touchdowns, not brian westbrook or LJ gettng 10 points because they caught a football 10 times.People knew the risk coming into this week. They knew westbrook hadn't practiced all week, people knew Greens Hammy was tender, THEY WERE BOTH LISTED AS QUESTIONABLE, and when they get scratched, they want to go and put someone else in? sorry but that is what Sunday at 12pm is forIf you decided to take a flyer on them...well you missed, sorry, thats the breaks.

 

[pizzatyme]

I know some of you will say the game time decision is part of the game, but sometimes no amount of research or preparation will help you make good decisions, especially with teams wanting to hide injuries from each other and players "testing" their injuries during pregame warmups. FF has enough luck to it, we felt this took a little of the luck/guess factor away. My league put this rule in a few years ago, and it has worked very well (and as commish, I actually had to use it three times this week, normally I don't use it very often). When submitting their lineup, for each position each owner can add one "backup" player. If one of the starters does not play AT ALL in the game (is shown as inactive or "did not play" on nfl.com's gamebook), then the backup is inserted in the starting lineup. This allows people to start someone that is questionable, and if they don't end out dressing, they are replaced. If a player doesn't play, that owner is responsible for alerting his opponent and the commish of the situation, and the commish doublechecks on nfl.com. Obviously, the backup player is picked when the starting lineup is picked, not after the starter doesn't play.I thought I would post it here to see if anyone would want to think about it for your league, especially after nights like last night. We actually require our lineups to be in Sat at midnight, so owners can't make changes at the last second. (I know we could change that, but there are some issues there).

I guess it would depend on what kind of league you are in; a high stakes league or a league with your Mom in it! IMHO, players being out are part of the game. You know the risks when you draft injury prone players and have to plan accordingly. It especially gets hairy when the player in question doesn't play Sunday at 1pm and you have to make a decision, but again, it's part of the game. For the same reasons I am against Team QB.This is why injury prone like Westbrook or players with various off the field issues fall in the draft; you have to way the risks before you draft him. If people thought Westbrook would play 16 games, he would easily be a top 10-12 draft pick. But he falls due to the risk of something like last night happening.

I think that is bunk! GTD are just not fair to any fantasy owner. You can adjust for "injury prone" players all you want. This is different than a GTD. I think it is only fair to offer a "First-in Reserve" at each position you have available.This way you can be rewarded for drafting a team, and having depth, JUST LIKE THE REAL GAME!Isn't fantasy football supposed to be like the real game?Otherwise, when the Packers scratched Green last night, they should not be allowed to have a RB play, period! That is rediculous.

It isn't "bunk" in my opinion. Sorry for the newsflash but Fantasy football is not like the NFL nor is it going to imitate it. If it was then the only thing that should count is touchdowns, not brian westbrook or LJ gettng 10 points because they caught a football 10 times.People knew the risk coming into this week. They knew westbrook hadn't practiced all week, people knew Greens Hammy was tender, THEY WERE BOTH LISTED AS QUESTIONABLE, and when they get scratched, they want to go and put someone else in? sorry but that is what Sunday at 12pm is forIf you decided to take a flyer on them...well you missed, sorry, thats the breaks.

Well, hell, let's make it even more rediculous. Draft a team, start them. No changes allowed the whole season. Everyone has a bye week, so that is even.If you take a flyer on a player by drafting him, then so be it, that was your choice.

 

[Mario Kart]

It isn't "bunk" in my opinion. Sorry for the newsflash but Fantasy football is not like the NFL nor is it going to imitate it. If it was then the only thing that should count is touchdowns, not brian westbrook or LJ gettng 10 points because they caught a football 10 times.People knew the risk coming into this week. They knew westbrook hadn't practiced all week, people knew Greens Hammy was tender, THEY WERE BOTH LISTED AS QUESTIONABLE, and when they get scratched, they want to go and put someone else in? sorry but that is what Sunday at 12pm is forIf you decided to take a flyer on them...well you missed, sorry, thats the breaks.

If you feel so confident in that you believe your theory to be correct, why not submit your lineup today... and not change it before Sunday noon.

 

[pizzatyme]

It isn't "bunk" in my opinion. Sorry for the newsflash but Fantasy football is not like the NFL nor is it going to imitate it. If it was then the only thing that should count is touchdowns, not brian westbrook or LJ gettng 10 points because they caught a football 10 times.People knew the risk coming into this week. They knew westbrook hadn't practiced all week, people knew Greens Hammy was tender, THEY WERE BOTH LISTED AS QUESTIONABLE, and when they get scratched, they want to go and put someone else in? sorry but that is what Sunday at 12pm is forIf you decided to take a flyer on them...well you missed, sorry, thats the breaks.

If you feel so confident in that you believe your theory to be correct, why not submit your lineup today... and not change it before Sunday noon.

 

[Refbuz]

We have a similar rule in our league, and no one has a problem with it.

The main reason that we instituted it is because an owner who has a player who's a GTD @ 1PM has a decided advantage over the owner who has a player who is a GTD in a later game. We instituted the rule to take that advantage away.

 

[harryhood]

It isn't "bunk" in my opinion. Sorry for the newsflash but Fantasy football is not like the NFL nor is it going to imitate it. If it was then the only thing that should count is touchdowns, not brian westbrook or LJ gettng 10 points because they caught a football 10 times.People knew the risk coming into this week. They knew westbrook hadn't practiced all week, people knew Greens Hammy was tender, THEY WERE BOTH LISTED AS QUESTIONABLE, and when they get scratched, they want to go and put someone else in? sorry but that is what Sunday at 12pm is forIf you decided to take a flyer on them...well you missed, sorry, thats the breaks.

If you feel so confident in that you believe your theory to be correct, why not submit your lineup today... and not change it before Sunday noon.

because the week unfolds tuesday - saturday. If you have to go to sundy and monday night waiting on news, then maybe that should tell you, you should have started a safer player, if you had the depth.I went up against Westbrook and he needed only 5 points. Of course I am happy as #### today, a little biased and I can see your point of view, however the guy I played left two pretty decent backs on the bench. Bottom line, you know lineups are due on sat or sunday...or whenever. Why not just take the safe play if they were both Questionable and missed practice all week?

 

[Mario Kart]

Why not just take the safe play if they were both Questionable and missed practice all week?

This makes no sense whatsoever. I also would be willing to bet if you were the Westbrook owner you would be singing a different tune. You, and others, should see why this rule would be good for everyone if that is the case. Karma can be a b###h and I think you might regret something like this later on. You were lucky this week but later on...

 

[dawgtrails]

Why not just take the safe play if they were both Questionable and missed practice all week?

This makes no sense whatsoever. I also would be willing to bet if you were the Westbrook owner you would be singing a different tune. You, and others, should see why this rule would be good for everyone if that is the case. Karma can be a b###h and I think you might regret something like this later on. You were lucky this week but later on...

How many back-up players are you allowed to put in? How big are the rosters? Can you explain it in a little more detail?I would like some sort of system where, if you had, let's say Ahman Green, and you were wise enough to have Morency...then you would be allowed to make the switch late. This way, backup RBs for players who are hurt often become valuable trading chips.

 

[Mario Kart]

Why not just take the safe play if they were both Questionable and missed practice all week?

This makes no sense whatsoever. I also would be willing to bet if you were the Westbrook owner you would be singing a different tune. You, and others, should see why this rule would be good for everyone if that is the case. Karma can be a b###h and I think you might regret something like this later on. You were lucky this week but later on...

How many back-up players are you allowed to put in? How big are the rosters? Can you explain it in a little more detail?I would like some sort of system where, if you had, let's say Ahman Green, and you were wise enough to have Morency...then you would be allowed to make the switch late. This way, backup RBs for players who are hurt often become valuable trading chips.

I think 1 back up is optimal. If you have one question about a player or even have his backup you should be allowed to switch up until game time. Not have some arbitrary time set like 12:00 just because A game kicks off then. When there are Thursday games are lineups locked Thursday night? I do not believe that is the case in any league. 1 is good.

 

[pizzatyme]

I just left multiple leagues at NFSL.com for other reasons, but they had a nice system for this problem.

They allowed a backup for the QB, and Flex(RB or WR)

They also allowed a backup for the LB and Def. Flex.

The onlt way the backup was used was if the starter didn't play. It worked great.

This 12PM cutoff is just stupid! Some fans actuslly go to games! We go out at 7 AM to tailgate.

These types of rules give benefit to the guy who can sit here on Sunday and read every post coming in. That is a little silly if you ask me.

Make it fair, make it fun.

 

[mac daddy]

Why not just take the safe play if they were both Questionable and missed practice all week?

This makes no sense whatsoever. I also would be willing to bet if you were the Westbrook owner you would be singing a different tune. You, and others, should see why this rule would be good for everyone if that is the case. Karma can be a b###h and I think you might regret something like this later on. You were lucky this week but later on...

How many back-up players are you allowed to put in? How big are the rosters? Can you explain it in a little more detail?I would like some sort of system where, if you had, let's say Ahman Green, and you were wise enough to have Morency...then you would be allowed to make the switch late. This way, backup RBs for players who are hurt often become valuable trading chips.

We allow one backup at each position. So we start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, and one K, and you can have one backup for each. When you turn in your starting lineup, you turn in your backups as well, and once the game has been played, if your starter did not play at all (again, inactive or "did not play" on nfl.com gamebook), then the backup is inserted in.

 

[stubby]

I'll use last nite's game to illustrate how our league handles this issue. If a team has Westbrook, and finds out at the last minute that he's not playing due to injury, the team is allowed to acquire another RB from that game, and that game ONLY to start in place of him. (for instance...Buckhalter, Mahe). If you do that, you have to drop another RB on your roster to make room for him, plus it costs you $5 (standard cost in our league for free agent pick-ups).

I like this for three reasons. It prevents a team from getting a zero, but doesn't let someone get to use another player's stats from a previous game, therefore you aren't really hedging your bets to get the best possible score. Secondly, it requires the team's owner to be diligent in the managing of his team. Third, he has to consider roster implications of his move, and fork over $5 for the trouble.

It works pretty well. The Westbrook owner picked up Mahe, dropped M. Bennett, and got a few points, but didn't get 15 like he would have if he had Barlow inserted as his "backup" like some previous posts mention.