What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Dodds on the clock at 5.02 FanEx FAD (1 Viewer)

I'm confused. I did the write for Hickerson's pick yesterday early evening and he was showing at the 5.2 spot at the time. Dodds then posts this late evening with the 5.2 spot. Now it is showing Hickerson again.In my opinion the WR to grab is Marty Booker. He'll last a little longer so a trade down is probably wise.

 
I'm confused. I did the write for Hickerson's pick yesterday early evening and he was showing at the 5.2 spot at the time. Dodds then posts this late evening with the 5.2 spot. Now it is showing Hickerson again.
Click to expand...
That typo was corrected this morning.5.02 Dodds5.03 Holm5.04 Hickerson
 
What was the trade before FanEx went on hold?
Click to expand...
All transactions are at http://fanexfootball.com/03/FAD/fadtans.htmlThe most recent trade was Dodds 3.12 + 4.01 +9.12 + 11.12 for Cannon 5.02 + 6.03 + 6.09 + 7.04. QB Warner + WR Holt were then claimed at 3.12 and 4.01. Analysis at site.Also, FAD will begin drafting within the next 24 hours, as we await the commissioner ruling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i would take Brooks, Coles, Toomer in that order. I would not even bother with one of those crappy RB's. I would rather take Larry Johnson and hope Holmes doesnt play this year. In which case you just scored yourself a to 5-8 RB.

 
If this was a typical league, I would definitely not draft a rb here. You would no draft a crappy running back, because you are going to start Tiki and Taylor every week. However, the running backs are continuing to go.IF you take LJ as your running back three, you get almost 0 points from this position if Priest is healthy. You can't risk that here. You need someone to cover byes and hopefully will have a couple of big games during Taylor's off games. As evidenced in my earlier post a solid qb does not give you great benefit over two streaky guys. If you do not get one of these rb's the trade down has significantly more potential to be a colossal failure.BTW- a decent unmentioned RB4 in this league is Mike Alstott. He will have between 1-3 2td games, and you don't have to guess when they will be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll go off the reservation here a bit and recommend taking Stacey Mack and here's why: Mack has the best available upside left. Its the Corey Dillon quandry, good backs on bad teams will have big games, but infrequently. In the Fan-ex format, this actually works for you because you dont have to pick starters. Of all the backs left, imo Mack is the only one (ok maybe Hearst but he has his own problems) with the physical ability to light up a couple of 150 yard, 2 td games. Houston may suck, but somebody is going to take them too lightly and be made to pay. It happens every year. Be the recipient of this good fortune.WRs are still deep, but I think Mack will be off the board real soon leaving you with your choice of broken down old guys and full blown RBBCs.If not Mack, grab a QB. Yes QBs are deep, and yes you can play by committee in this format, but everyone else knows that too. There will be a run on second tier QBs soon. You dont want to be stuck in a position without at least one solid, dependable, no questions asked QB (McNair would be a nice target matched up with Hasselback or someone with big upside). But everyone will be doing this so dont be the guy depending on Plummer to produce.

 
I'll concede the point of not playing in a survivor format as the learning curve for playing FF (any form) is quite steep. I don't want to drop this idea though with what both MT and Dallas have offered up just yet.

MT-4 RBs and not one is a backup? That's 48 of them if everyone goes that way and 42 if just half of 'em go that way. I understand there are RBBCs but I think you are supporting the idea of back ups but just not handcuffing?

I understand the weekly 0s are bad. Those are the same 0s you risk from your top back if they get hurt. So you have a lesser starter coming in and picking up that 0 and pushing it higher. I got it. But doesn't a back up almost guarantee you top back doesn't get hurt? Now there are only some RBs I'd handcuff (the ones I listed and maybe the one for A. Green). I say this not just for the injury factor for these RBs but for the capability of their back ups. Granted, Johnson and Toefield are unproven but the Jaguars like two RBs. In this format, having Mack and Taylor last year would have been a Martha Stewart thing.

I guess I'd be satisfied w/your responses if it weren't for the complete overvaluation of the RBs in this draft. Man, it's hard to pass on some of these WRs for the likes of Pittman and to a lesser extent, Hearst. Dodds' spot and trade almost forces him to be one of the owners who is just SOL on starting RB depth beyond three. So when dealt lemons, make lemonade on other positions.

I still don't see the harm in taking Toefield much later.
Click to expand...
I think what he is saying is to grab your 4 before the other owners have a chance to.
 
I'm concerned that Hearst is a June 1 cut. Pittman stands out among RBs imho.I'd definitely go for two top QBs but not until round 6. I vote Pittman here or one of Price, Booker, Toomer who I have ranked about evenly. Probably Price since he'll be more of a boom-or-bust player in my view which is an asset in this scoring.

 
I don't see Hearst as a problem if he is cut June 1. He would be an upgrade in Detroit, NE, Tampa, Dallas and maybe Chicago. He would get a job.

 
I would not handcuff RBs in this format. I would however want a Pittman/Alstott or Dunn/Duckett type of combination. Either player could have a good week on any given week. Plus if one of them gets hurt you not only have a backup... you have an even better player.

 
I'd take Brooks here and try to get Pittman or Mack with your next pick. There are so many good receivers left, so I think you shouldn't take any this early. I think Brooks is by far better than any of the quarterbacks left. With your next pick you need to get a serviceable number three because you have Fragile Freddy as your number two.

 
hey brave or anyone else that hasnt played a survivor league...you cant waste the spots...sorry...you have to hope...you need scoring from any and all positions...lemme know what survivor league you've been in and won...i won last years survivor on the mocks and it was mostly luck but it had nuthing to do with backing up players...here is something for anyone that dosent know: THIS IS NOT UR FASTASY LEAGUE...THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT FORMAT...YOU HAVE NO ROSTER SPACE FOR BACKUPS...KNOW THIS...anyway...ill expect more bs from those that have never done this type of format...lets hear it
Click to expand...
18 team HEFFA Survivor League, 2002 Champ- 10 roster spots- start top 7 each week (1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 3 flex RB/WR, 1 K)- lowest scoring team each week gets bootedWinning Roster (in draft order going by memory):Ricky WilliamsJoe HornJerome BettisBrian GrieseMike AlstottAmos Zereoue (handcuff)Kevin DysonShane MatthewsDavid AkersSteve Beuerlein (handcuff)So IMHO, handcuffing a player does work. If you find what you expect to be a productive position all year (i.e. Steelers running game, Broncos passing game), then you might as well lock it up if you can.[EDIT - and I meant to add, we don't pick the starting lineup each week. Best lineup goes, same as FAD.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WRs are still deep, but I think Mack will be off the board real soon leaving you with your choice of broken down old guys and full blown RBBCs.If not Mack, grab a QB. Yes QBs are deep, and yes you can play by committee in this format, but everyone else knows that too. There will be a run on second tier QBs soon. You dont want to be stuck in a position without at least one solid, dependable, no questions asked QB (McNair would be a nice target matched up with Hasselback or someone with big upside). But everyone will be doing this so dont be the guy depending on Plummer to produce.
Click to expand...
I definitely would go RB here. Mack/Pittman/Hearst will all get you points at least 6 weeks this year, IMO. And I agree with Maurile in that if you can get 4 starters by the end of the 5th, go for it. The QB run probably won't come until the late 6th, early 7th, or even later, judging by the MBSL's. And, especially this year when solid starting QB's is about 25 deep, guaranteeing at least 2 each. Heck, looking at Dodds 6th and 7th rounders, he will probably start the run by taking two in the sixth, and maybe even three, which would be my preference under this format. As for the WR's, everybody's assessment is dead on in that the WR crop is relatively deep for use in the best starter format. A cheaper assortment of 2nd-Tier WR's should still get you good points this year.
 
Wow! Tough, tough choice here Mr. Dodds. I don't feel any of those runningbacks are worthy of that draft position and you can wait on a QB because they all seem to be in the same tier. I would recommend taking Toomer, but since you have Tiki, you'd be stuck starting 2 Giants every week. Now, I'm a die hard Giants fan and have total faith in their offense this year, however I'm not big on starting 2 silled positions from the same team. Collins has a bad day, you have a bad day. I'd go with Price here, although I think Price will have some growing pains the first 5-6 games of the season, but with that gunslinger throwing him the bean, he should have some huge games and could have a great second half.

 
18 team HEFFA Survivor League, 2002 Champ- 10 roster spots- start top 7 each week (1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 3 flex RB/WR, 1 K)- lowest scoring team each week gets bootedWinning Roster (in draft order going by memory):Ricky WilliamsJoe HornJerome BettisBrian GrieseMike AlstottAmos Zereoue (handcuff)Kevin DysonShane MatthewsDavid AkersSteve Beuerlein (handcuff)So IMHO, handcuffing a player does work. If you find what you expect to be a productive position all year (i.e. Steelers running game, Broncos passing game), then you might as well lock it up if you can.[EDIT - and I meant to add, we don't pick the starting lineup each week. Best lineup goes, same as FAD.]
Click to expand...
Mike,I know you were refuting a comment from someone who participated in a survivor league- but this is different than a survivor league. This is league where you have a record. Your job, every week in a Survivor league, is not necessarily to win, but instead, never to be worst. While I think there are similarities between the leagues, the are very different in some essential ways.In a survivor league, you simply can't take a Bettis 0 or you are in deep trouble. Having his back-up makes some sense, and in your case, you won by handcuffing precisely the correct players to the correct situations. Keep in mind, that everyone else that handcuffed lost.
 
My humble opinion is that this format really BLOWS when anyone is considering taking someone like Pittman over a load of solid WR's like those listed. That being said, a format like this really lends itself to QBBC's and WRBC's. I'm of the opinion that Toomer is the best value for a pick here because he epitomizes a good WR in this format; explosive but inconsistent. He frustrates the heck out of you if you are forced to pick him week to week, but here he can do what he does and be a solid pick for you. I would look to get the 3rd RB with the next pick as one of these stiffs will still be around. JMHO.

 
Actually rabid, the FAD is not record. It is total points. See rules, points H, I and J:

http://fanexfootball.com/03/FAD/fadrules.html

Yes, if others in my league handcuffed players, they did lose last year (suckers! :rant: ), but to be quite honest I don't remember anyone who did, or at least made such a point of it as I did with my strategy. That is not to say handcuffing is always necessary and will always work. I was just pointing out to dallas that he is off base to so enthusiastically claim that handcuffing is a terrible idea in a survivor or similar style league. It can work as I proved last year.

[Aside: As with any survivor league, there is a lot of luck involved too. EDIT: Even more so than a standard fantasy league.]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though I don't think it has been said yet, I would take Hearst. I think he is the best rb available, and he has the most upside. Also, there are 9 picks until you go again and you listed 11 rbs/wrs, so you are guarenteed at least one more player from that list. I think it is too early to go mediocre wr. There will be plenty left later. Rb's are getting thin, and I think there is still some talent left.

 
Mike- noted. I was so focused on the fact that it was not eliimination, I missed the obvious. However, my premise is the same. In survivor if your QB or RB gets knocked out of a game, you are in trouble. You goal is to never score the least points. In this, your goal is to finish with most points, and it makes no diffence how you get there.

 
-On trading - Dodds, don't trade down again. Get the best available players for your need at WR. Every one else has been stockpiling talent in rounds 3-4 while you traded down in order to pounce into a talent pool. That pool right now is WR. I recommend Toomer. You have the opportunity, in the 5th round now, to build a team many would drool for in this type of league - 2 RBs who perform at a high level, plus three-four WRs, any of whom, could have a huge week on any given week. Get Toomer now and look for RB3 and another WR at your turn at the bottom of the round.

-Forget QB - go QBBC starting at your late 6th round pick and get another at your turn in the bottom of the 6th. Look for the Hasselbeck/Ramsey, types who could be huge, but might not. The high reward players at QB late is a good strategy since any of them could go 300/3 in any given game, but might not on a weekly basis. Luckily, you don't have to pick which one will go off each week!

-Didn't know one off-handed handcuff comment, the most minor point in my post, would cause this much controversy. I've never PLAYED this type of league, but I UNDERSTAND how it works. I re-familarized myself with the rules to make sure I didn't miss something. I stand by my handcuff comment and below is the reason why.

1) handcuff to backup - normally not a good idea.

2) handcuff within a RBBC? Ala, getting Pittman RB3 and Alstott RB4, good idea.

3) Taylor is an exception - I consider Taylor this year in the same way I considered him last year. I would not hesitate to grab him because he plays so well, but I consider him automatically two roster spots. He's worth a "wasted" roster spot in this format because Tiki plays every week, and if Taylor's playing, the points you might get from the available RB4 on your roster are IRRELEVANT. If Taylor goes down, his backup usually performs at a HIGHER LEVEL than the RB4 you have available. In any case, you are counting on getting production weekly from both Taylor and Tiki OR from Tiki and Taylor's backup, with the occasional week from your RB3/4. If Taylor goes down in week 3, you look like a genius. So, even if using only 4 RBs, handcuffing FOR TAYLOR ONLY is a recommended strategy. Personally, I'd keep 5 RBs on my roster. Taylor is so good and his backup is so valuable if he plays that keeping a 5th RB for Taylor's backup is recommended.

- picking RBs - If picking a RB 5.02, Hearst ,Pittman or Emmitt at RB3 is recommended. Either way, Dodds needs one of these guys at his pick at the turn. Hearst, if cut, will be starting somewhere else. Hearst, if not cut, will still have a few real good games. I like Emmitt here, too, since he IS a feature back. He wants one more 1000 yards season and he might just barely get it in AZ. And, given the horrendous WR corps, he may see a lot of underneath and outlet passes. He's always had good hands. Pittman catches the ball well, and got 250 touches last year. I see his role increasing if TB's O improves and could be worth the gamble that he emereges as the Charlie Garner in Gruden's offense.

DO NOT pick Mack at this point. Since Houston has Wells, and is reportedly interested in trading for Jones, I see a RBBC situation developing on a team that will be getting demolished offensively each week. Production will be minimal, and he's not really known as a pass catcher - besides, Texans have a ton of pass catching options and Mack's reception numbers probably won't be high. At least Emmitt is the clear cut feature back on a team that will have offensive problems, and he can catch the ball when the AZ receivers are (inevitably) shut down.

 
Maybe this should be a separate thread, but I'm more a "reply" type than one who starts up a conversation.Anyway, I tend to look at handcuffing with more of a positive spin than just wasting a roster spot on a backup who won't play. I like to have a little insurance from injury, but more importantly if I think I can get good value from the combination of picks to produce a single top fantasy performer, then I'm happy to handcuff a guy.Example: If I think the starting RB for the Jets in 2003, whoever it may be, is worth a late 1st round pick, and I can get Curtis Martin at late 2nd and LaMont Jordan at...7th? 8th?, then I ask myself: would I trade a late 2nd and 7th/8th for a late 1st? Yeah, probably I would, so take them both.Risk: They split carries and drive you crazy. Plus you lose that 7th/8th from picking someone else...but in all honesty how many times have you drafted and not had some dog picks in there that will get replaced anyway?Upside: One guy is the primary RB, and you know who the clear starter in 15 of 16 games.Big Upside: That guy happens to be LaMont Jordan, who excels given his new opportunity and everyone falls in love with him because he is a new face on the scene (a la Jerry Porter, 2002) and the NFL media hype machine is in high gear. Huge trade value. Good position to be in.Could have used the same example last year though unfortunately. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

 
As to the point of this thread, for those recommending Garrison Hearst, aren't we all pretty certain at this point he is going to be released by the 49ers at June 1? That puts him in no man's land. While he could land with another team, like Detroit (Mariucci), he could land no where. Ricky Watters anyone? Emmitt to the Cards? Ugh... Better to pass on Hearst and let another team have that head ache.

 
Upside: One guy is the primary RB, and you know who the clear starter in 15 of 16 games.
Click to expand...
But in this league there is no clear starter in any games.My problem with handcuffing is that even if you lock the Jets' running game up (Martin and Jordan), the Jets' running game will produce numbers like 4, 18, 5, 22, 8, 10, 4 . . .

That is not a consistent starter in this format. There's no such thing as a consistent starter in this format. There will be weeks when any RB gets fewer than six fantasy points. You need to have other NFL starters on your roster who will (hopefully) pick up the slack in those weeks. If you have three starting NFL RBs on your roster, one or two will have a good week in week 8 (or any other particular week). If you have four starting NFL RBs on your roster, two or three of will have a good week in week 8. There is a very large difference between those two situations in this format (unlike in formats where you choose your starters each week before the games start).

 
Maybe this should be a separate thread, but I'm more a "reply" type than one who starts up a conversation.Anyway, I tend to look at handcuffing with more of a positive spin than just wasting a roster spot on a backup who won't play. I like to have a little insurance from injury, but more importantly if I think I can get good value from the combination of picks to produce a single top fantasy performer, then I'm happy to handcuff a guy.Example: If I think the starting RB for the Jets in 2003, whoever it may be, is worth a late 1st round pick, and I can get Curtis Martin at late 2nd and LaMont Jordan at...7th? 8th?, then I ask myself: would I trade a late 2nd and 7th/8th for a late 1st? Yeah, probably I would, so take them both.Risk: They split carries and drive you crazy. Plus you lose that 7th/8th from picking someone else...but in all honesty how many times have you drafted and not had some dog picks in there that will get replaced anyway?Upside: One guy is the primary RB, and you know who the clear starter in 15 of 16 games.Big Upside: That guy happens to be LaMont Jordan, who excels given his new opportunity and everyone falls in love with him because he is a new face on the scene (a la Jerry Porter, 2002) and the NFL media hype machine is in high gear. Huge trade value. Good position to be in.Could have used the same example last year though unfortunately. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Personally, I tend to be anti-handcuff in general, not just in this format, but will in the right situation.Using the Martin/Jordan example, it sure flopped last year. Even when Martin was injured, Jordan did nothing of note. A. Green & Meally. A wasted late rounder. Deuce missed time, but Keaton did nothing. I would rather have a Pittman/Alstott, Zereoue/Bettis RBBC type instead, someone I know will at least touch the ball, and with the same chance with injury of getting the majority of carries. I had Faulk in two leagues last year. With the uncertain b/u situation, I passed on Gordon and Canidate and grabbed Portis instead in one. The other, I went ahead and grabbed Canidate. Guess which league I did better in? As for Taylor, Right now, it is too early to handcuff him to someone. Toefield or Joseph, which will win the b/u job?The only true b/ups worthy of handcuffs right now, IMO, are Shipp and F Johnson. Both of which have a good chance of getting playing time in their own right.
 
I don't think Bettis/Zereoue was really RBBC going into last year.MT - I was expanding the pros of handcuffing to leagues in general, not necessarily just under this format.

 
I don't think Bettis/Zereoue was really RBBC going into last year.
Click to expand...
They weren't an official RBBC, you are right. But they were a Shipp/Emmitt situation where you knew he would get a lot of time, and he did. He was a worthwhile starter for me in a couple of league last year, and is an especially worthwhile pick in a best starter format.
 
My humble opinion is that this format really BLOWS when anyone is considering taking someone like Pittman over a load of solid WR's like those listed. That being said, a format like this really lends itself to QBBC's and WRBC's. I'm of the opinion that Toomer is the best value for a pick here because he epitomizes a good WR in this format; explosive but inconsistent. He frustrates the heck out of you if you are forced to pick him week to week, but here he can do what he does and be a solid pick for you. I would look to get the 3rd RB with the next pick as one of these stiffs will still be around. JMHO.
Click to expand...
The world isnt going to change to your specifications. You have to learn to adapt to it. Taking a player you like and desire then blaming the system because it isnt the best pick wont win you many leagues. Which do you want the most? To have Toomer on your roster or to win your league?
 
This Dodds guy sure takes a long time to decide....LOL. Everyone waiting on the Commish ruling. I am hopeful if the draft halts for a few more months, a few more RB options might show themselves here at 5.02

 
This Dodds guy sure takes a long time to decide....LOL. Everyone waiting on the Commish ruling. I am hopeful if the draft halts for a few more months, a few more RB options might show themselves here at 5.02
Click to expand...
Can you tell us what the issue is? Or is it of a personal nature?
 
It's probably not my place to say anything yet. There is a vote amongst the members. I am sure TC will post something as soon as Jerome Hickerson (the Commish) makes a ruling

 
FBG.com | Bryant Suing Dodds Over FAD Team - from www.KFFL.com

Wed, 21 May 2003 12:04:50 -0700

Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe is reporting that Joe Bryant, co-owner of Footballguys.com come is suing fellow co-owner of Footballguys.com for custody of the FAD Team. Bryant has secured an injunction to hold up the draft until this dispute is settled. Sources close to the situation state that a rift has developed between the two partners due to an argument over whether or not to take a late round flyer on Rashaan Salaam or Curtis Enis. No compromise was able to be reached. An impartial moderator will hear this case in the next 24 hours.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually what Ryan said (as the cameras showed a shot of Bryant sitting on the sidelines watching Dodds draft) was that he'd like to smack Bryant because he's too attention-starved and is willing to use his website as a tool to draw attention.By the way - just found this board last night. Great discussion on some of the picks!

 
I believe it has something to due with the infamous "Playstation Precedent" currently being discussed in this thread...http://footballguys.net/forum/index.php?ac...t=ST&f=2&t=5380I believe the commish is making a last minute attempt to write a provision into the constitution preventing a missed picked due to 24 hours of video gaming :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Please. Don't drag more people into that thread. Jeez.And Dodds actually posted the problem briefly, before realizing his error I guess. For once, I actually saw something before it was deleted, unlike my FFA luck. :yes: :D And don't worry. I'll respect the privacy there. It is just kind of cool to know a secret for once. :D :D
 
The league commissioner has ruled on a member's suggestion. The FanEx Analysis Draft draft timer has been reset and we will now continue selections. (The league Executive Committee oversees the commish and has endorsed the action)

Thank you for your extended patience. FanEx FAD Link

 
Basically there was a rules clarification. Got a little uglier than that, but at least we are back drafting.Yes I fully expected no love for the Pittman pick, but need a third back. I see quite a bit of upside for Pittman and he does catch a lot of passes. I have lots of picks coming up. I am not worried at all about my WRs in that you get the top 2-3 each week. Give me 5 good (not great) receivers and I will be fine. I see a lot of those players coming to me very shortly.

 
Yes I fully expected no love for the Pittman pick, but need a third back. I see quite a bit of upside for Pittman and he does catch a lot of passes. I have lots of picks coming up. I am not worried at all about my WRs in that you get the top 2-3 each week. Give me 5 good (not great) receivers and I will be fine. I see a lot of those players coming to me very shortly.
Click to expand...
:( I liked Peerless Price a little better there, but Pittman's a solid pick based on the rules of the league & the way the draft has gone. Big question being whether or not enough RBs go in the next 10 picks to justify taking him here, instead of waiting for 5.12 to get what's left of the RB pack.So....when's the Michael Pittman POD? :(
 
I took Pittman.
Click to expand...
I don't care what the others say, Doddsie - Pittman is a solid pick here. I actually think he will do better this year as his familiarity with the rest of the offensive team improves. The pass catching potential is not a point to be overlooked here, as it rendered Tiki a top 7 RB in this system last year (and further validates that 1st round selection as well.) WRs at this point either have a question surrounding them or are dime-a-dozen types. Having waited on your third RB, this is a very solid pick. The boom-or-bust format will also help you on those weeks when he snares a screen pass and rambles 65 yards for a score, and ignore him on the occasional weeks when he gets ignored by his offense.I like. --rito
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Work League Draft Today
Replies
14
Views
963
VaTerp
VaTerp
Banemorth
Starting A Dynasty League
Replies
21
Views
1K
Banemorth
Banemorth
whodeywhodey
Rotoworld's Midseason Mock
Replies
16
Views
2K
None_More_Black
None_More_Black

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top