Dynasty Weekly Lineup Etiquette? (1 Viewer)

[TheBradyBunch]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

 

[FUBAR]

As long as there's a valid reason for it, rather than tanking, it's fine.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

In my Dynasty league, if you submit an improper / incomplete lineup or start a player that is listed as OUT on the injury report, you get fined. If you do it again, you get kicked out of the league with no refund.

 

[PatsFan72]

As long as someone isn't tanking, then I see no problem with it.

 

[Wildcat]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

In my Dynasty league, if you submit an improper / incomplete lineup or start a player that is listed as OUT on the injury report, you get fined. If you do it again, you get kicked out of the league with no refund.

Many times a team's defense or kicker will be on the same bye week. Given it is a dynasty league and the schedules change each year, sometimes this will happen. So you force a team to pickup a player to cover this bye? What if they have nobody to cut to cover this? Fining them and kicking them out of the league for this? That's too harsh IMO.

 

[lyon812]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

In my Dynasty league, if you submit an improper / incomplete lineup or start a player that is listed as OUT on the injury report, you get fined. If you do it again, you get kicked out of the league with no refund.

Many times a team's defense or kicker will be on the same bye week. Given it is a dynasty league and the schedules change each year, sometimes this will happen. So you force a team to pickup a player to cover this bye? What if they have nobody to cut to cover this? Fining them and kicking them out of the league for this? That's too harsh IMO.

Our league doesn't force people to start someone. Usually I try to cover bye weeks because hey, every point counts towards a win, but if it comes down to choosing a player I think will make my team stronger for the rest of the season--compared to just one week--then I'll go for the long-term.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

In my Dynasty league, if you submit an improper / incomplete lineup or start a player that is listed as OUT on the injury report, you get fined. If you do it again, you get kicked out of the league with no refund.

Many times a team's defense or kicker will be on the same bye week. Given it is a dynasty league and the schedules change each year, sometimes this will happen. So you force a team to pickup a player to cover this bye? What if they have nobody to cut to cover this? Fining them and kicking them out of the league for this? That's too harsh IMO.

We have 14 man flex rosters. That's 2 QBs, 3 RBs, 3 WRs, 2 TEs, 2 Ks, 2 Ds. If you choose to roster 4 WRs or 4 RBs, you run the risk of having to drop one to pick up a K. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[munchkin]

Both my kicker and def/st are on a bye in week 8. I plan on taking a zero for both rather than cutting players I want to keep on my roster. There are no rules to prevent this in our Dynasty charter. I have heard Cecil and Sigmund discussing this "take a zero strategy" when faced with drafting players with the same bye week who have a higher value over one with a lower grade.

 

[B Maverick]

Is a kicker really THAT good that dropping him for another kicker is out of the question?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

In my leagues where we have limited transactions it's a common move, even by competitive teams. Usually it involves the tight end or special team positions.

 

[jeter23]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

In my Dynasty league, if you submit an improper / incomplete lineup or start a player that is listed as OUT on the injury report, you get fined. If you do it again, you get kicked out of the league with no refund.

This is what we do in the HyperActive leagues too.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Is "taking a zero" a common strategy in other dynasty leagues when faced with having to make a tough K/DEF or other pickup to just cover a bye week? In my main league I've seen it done just once or twice in all of our years. In those cases, it was by a dominant team and a team that had no chance and was rebuilding. I'm just curious how others have handled these types of situations in the past and how it's viewed in terms of other leaguemates as far as lineup integrity is concerned? Is this a common strategy that is widely-accepted or something that's frowned upon...just curious?

In my Dynasty league, if you submit an improper / incomplete lineup or start a player that is listed as OUT on the injury report, you get fined. If you do it again, you get kicked out of the league with no refund.

This is what we do in the HyperActive leagues too.

People rarely take an incomplete lineup fine, and I've never seen anyone get kicked out for these kinds of infractions in my league.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Is a kicker really THAT good that dropping him for another kicker is out of the question?

If you have Nick Folk, would you want to drop him so you can cover a bye week with David Akers? I wouldn't. It's not that they're THAT good. It's that adding Folk's extra 2-3 points per week (over other kickers) could rack up an extra win or two each season for as long as you have him. I'd prefer to take the zero at K for one week. Taking a zero doesn't mean you're sacrificing the week. You can still win anyway. But if it's not worth it to drop anyone else, taking a zero makes sense and should at least be considered imo.

 

[Flea Flicker]

I actually just took a zero on my kicker in a league where transactions are at a cost. It had no impact on the outcome (which, of course, I had no certain way of knowing beforehand), but it was not for tanking. In fact, it wasn't too much about saving the $5 on the transaction, either. It was more about protecting my existing roster, at which I valued my worst player more than a bye week kicker.

If you think that's worth fining/expelling from the league, then have rules in place beforehand that say so. There were none in my league, so it's not like I had any moral misgivings about it since I thought my team was better in the long run for doing it anyway.

One other thought, if you're really concerned about this, set up your scoring to make it more advantageous to field a kicker or defense. This seems particularly easy to do for defensive scoring if you don't over-penalize for points/yards given up, i.e. don't make taking a zero to be such a point-neutral result.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Both my kicker and def/st are on a bye in week 8. I plan on taking a zero for both rather than cutting players I want to keep on my roster. There are no rules to prevent this in our Dynasty charter. I have heard Cecil and Sigmund discussing this "take a zero strategy" when faced with drafting players with the same bye week who have a higher value over one with a lower grade.

 

[FFdork]

I had to do it b/c my dynasty limits weekly transactions and there were a lot of great guys available on the waiver wire. After I used up my moves, I realized I couldn't field enough D-lineman due to injuries and byes. I was heavily favored and it's not uncommon for a DL to put up 0 anyway.

As long as you're making a legit attempt (within the rules) to try to win more games by doing it, I wouldn't have a problem.

Common sense applies though--if you're in a tight division and decided not to field a RB because you didn't want to drop your kicker, people in my leagues would get pissed, whether it's within the rules or not. You'd probably be looking for a new league the next year.

 

[renesauz]

This is a tough topic with no right answer. Folks on both sides of the fence have very valid arguments.

I would argue that leagues with small to middle sized rosters probably need to leave some flexibility in their rules. Perhaps even allow a roster exempton for bye week K's and DST's?

Most dynasty leagues use much higher roster limits. When you can carry 24 players, it's hard to justify taking a zero instead of dropping a player in those cases.

I do believe that compromes are possible tocover these types of scenarios, and should be openly discussed in the league wellbefore the bye weeks. A simple fine sounds....simply short-sighted.

 

[renesauz]

One alternate idea for small to mid sized roster leagues.

If you don't want to drop a K or DST for bye week coverage...you can opt to take the average score YTD for that player. However...that K or DST is now LOCKED onto your roster for the remainder of the year. No tradeing or dropping them. If they are so valuable to yu that you can't drop them for coverage, then you should be bonded to them inextricably.

A nice compromise?

 

[PranksterJD]

One alternate idea for small to mid sized roster leagues.If you don't want to drop a K or DST for bye week coverage...you can opt to take the average score YTD for that player. However...that K or DST is now LOCKED onto your roster for the remainder of the year. No tradeing or dropping them. If they are so valuable to yu that you can't drop them for coverage, then you should be bonded to them inextricably.A nice compromise?

kinda, but fails for the stud player situation. If you've got crosby or folk, etc... someone who you wouldn't MIND being bonded to for the year, then you can actually do better overall than you normally would by getting the YTD average. You'd actually be getting **rewarded** for having a great player since you'd get great production in all 17 weeks rather than having one week off. It would be a trivially simple decision to take the free points and be "forced" to start the stud each week

 

[rockalum]

Is a kicker really THAT good that dropping him for another kicker is out of the question?

If you have Nick Folk, would you want to drop him so you can cover a bye week with David Akers? I wouldn't. It's not that they're THAT good. It's that adding Folk's extra 2-3 points per week (over other kickers) could rack up an extra win or two each season for as long as you have him. I'd prefer to take the zero at K for one week. Taking a zero doesn't mean you're sacrificing the week. You can still win anyway. But if it's not worth it to drop anyone else, taking a zero makes sense and should at least be considered imo.

i took a zero at te a few weeks ago. i got blown out, so it was no big deal. i hated doing it, but i hated spending $10 of my FAAB for a one-week fillin who might only getting me 5-6 points that week. as for the above example, you're not paying much attention if you think nick folk is that good this year. i just picked up kris brown to cover the upcoming bye because i had an open roster spot. i will probably start brown over folk at this point.

 

[TheOriginalDoubledown]

Is a kicker really THAT good that dropping him for another kicker is out of the question?

If you have Nick Folk, would you want to drop him so you can cover a bye week with David Akers? I wouldn't. It's not that they're THAT good. It's that adding Folk's extra 2-3 points per week (over other kickers) could rack up an extra win or two each season for as long as you have him. I'd prefer to take the zero at K for one week. Taking a zero doesn't mean you're sacrificing the week. You can still win anyway. But if it's not worth it to drop anyone else, taking a zero makes sense and should at least be considered imo.

i took a zero at te a few weeks ago. i got blown out, so it was no big deal. i hated doing it, but i hated spending $10 of my FAAB for a one-week fillin who might only getting me 5-6 points that week. as for the above example, you're not paying much attention if you think nick folk is that good this year. i just picked up kris brown to cover the upcoming bye because i had an open roster spot. i will probably start brown over folk at this point.

I took a zero last week from Larry Johnson. He wasn't even on a bye and still gave me as many points as your TE.

 

[Wu-banger]

taking a zero is more feasible than dropping a player that you know will be snatched up by an opponent long term....

 

[King of the Jungle]

I think there should be a penalty. If you lose by that amount it effects the other teams in the league. IMO, it similar to the Colts playing their backups last year vs. the Titans. Rules should be in place ahead of time so every is on the same page.

 

[SuperJohn96]

In my 53 mand roster dynasty league, these are the available Free Agent Kickers:

1. 0.000 Points - Hauschka, Steven FA PK

2. 0.000 Points - Lloyd, Rhys CAR PK

Having a rule against this would have no use in our league, that's all I know...

 

[Lash]

I think there should be a penalty. If you lose by that amount it effects the other teams in the league. IMO, it similar to the Colts playing their backups last year vs. the Titans. Rules should be in place ahead of time so every is on the same page.

you contradicted yourself i thinkyou mention the need for penalties for "taking a zero" and then listed an example in which it was a perfectly accepted practice to do the equivalent of "taking a zero"IMO the long-term benfits outweigh the short-term gainmurphy's law is in force here:i can't tell you how many times i've ate the zero at TE, K, and/or DST and won my game anyway and probably the same amount of times I've dropped a better player(s), filled the hole(s) and then NOT ONLY LOST THE DROPPED PLAYER(S) TO ANOTHER TEAM BUT ALSO LOST THE GAME WHERE I FILLED THE HOLES(the capitalized part above has happened to me enough to where I have now sworn to "take the zero" from now on if I like the dynastic potential of the bye week player)

 

[renesauz]

One alternate idea for small to mid sized roster leagues.

If you don't want to drop a K or DST for bye week coverage...you can opt to take the average score YTD for that player. However...that K or DST is now LOCKED onto your roster for the remainder of the year. No tradeing or dropping them. If they are so valuable to yu that you can't drop them for coverage, then you should be bonded to them inextricably.

A nice compromise?

kinda, but fails for the stud player situation. If you've got crosby or folk, etc... someone who you wouldn't MIND being bonded to for the year, then you can actually do better overall than you normally would by getting the YTD average. You'd actually be getting **rewarded** for having a great player since you'd get great production in all 17 weeks rather than having one week off. It would be a trivially simple decision to take the free points and be "forced" to start the stud each week

Kickers can be "studs"? I've NEVER drafted one before the tenth round...in a short roster league, 12th in a medium roster league 16 or so spots). Even the better defenses usually only go a round or two ealier. The argument is that f you actually spent an ealrier pick n a K or DST, you shouldn't be forced to drop them for a lousy bye.Now, if you're talking about purposefuly taking a zero at QB, RB, WR....Te in most leagues.....then I don't blame anyone for taking issue with that, becuase it can effect competitive balance. If league rosters are so restrictive that you can't put one of these in your lineup, something's wrong. (exception: two QB leagues shouldn't FORCE trades simply to fill lineups...I'd never play in such a league)

 

[GregR_2]

I think it is entirely dependent on the league's setup. Some setups it should be expected to happen, others there shouldn't be much excuse for it. The fewer bench spots you have per starting lineup spot, the more likely it should happen.

If you have enough backups to backup every starting slot plus 2-3 extra spots at QB, RB and WR each, then I don't see a lot of reason for it.

The time I think it is never ok is if it is done with the goal of causing his own team to lose that week.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I think there should be a penalty. If you lose by that amount it effects the other teams in the league. IMO, it similar to the Colts playing their backups last year vs. the Titans. Rules should be in place ahead of time so every is on the same page.

you contradicted yourself i thinkyou mention the need for penalties for "taking a zero" and then listed an example in which it was a perfectly accepted practice to do the equivalent of "taking a zero"IMO the long-term benfits outweigh the short-term gainmurphy's law is in force here:i can't tell you how many times i've ate the zero at TE, K, and/or DST and won my game anyway and probably the same amount of times I've dropped a better player(s), filled the hole(s) and then NOT ONLY LOST THE DROPPED PLAYER(S) TO ANOTHER TEAM BUT ALSO LOST THE GAME WHERE I FILLED THE HOLES(the capitalized part above has happened to me enough to where I have now sworn to "take the zero" from now on if I like the dynastic potential of the bye week player)

Interpreted wrong. I think there should be a penalty. The Colts/Titans game was an example on how it hurt another team (Browns). Giving your opponent an advantage (and having them win due this advantage) is unfair to the other teams in the league. Can't see how anyone could argue that point.(BTW it is irrelevant how many times this costs teams a vistory. Bottomline it has somewhere along the line and is unfair to the other squads IMO).

 

[PranksterJD]

One alternate idea for small to mid sized roster leagues.

If you don't want to drop a K or DST for bye week coverage...you can opt to take the average score YTD for that player. However...that K or DST is now LOCKED onto your roster for the remainder of the year. No tradeing or dropping them. If they are so valuable to yu that you can't drop them for coverage, then you should be bonded to them inextricably.

A nice compromise?

kinda, but fails for the stud player situation. If you've got crosby or folk, etc... someone who you wouldn't MIND being bonded to for the year, then you can actually do better overall than you normally would by getting the YTD average. You'd actually be getting **rewarded** for having a great player since you'd get great production in all 17 weeks rather than having one week off. It would be a trivially simple decision to take the free points and be "forced" to start the stud each week

Kickers can be "studs"? I've NEVER drafted one before the tenth round...in a short roster league, 12th in a medium roster league 16 or so spots). Even the better defenses usually only go a round or two ealier. The argument is that f you actually spent an ealrier pick n a K or DST, you shouldn't be forced to drop them for a lousy bye.Now, if you're talking about purposefuly taking a zero at QB, RB, WR....Te in most leagues.....then I don't blame anyone for taking issue with that, becuase it can effect competitive balance. If league rosters are so restrictive that you can't put one of these in your lineup, something's wrong. (exception: two QB leagues shouldn't FORCE trades simply to fill lineups...I'd never play in such a league)

I guess kickers can be studs in comparison to other kickers. Same with defenses. Granted, I was thinking more of TEs with my response, but it works the same.If you've got Prater this year, regardless of where you drafted ( or waiver picked ) him, and he's averaging 12 ppg. Under your proposal, I'd easily say "sure, I'll take the 12 points for his yearly average during his bye, and be bound to him for the rest of the year". Problem is that isn't fair to everyone else, since I now get 17 weeks of #1 kicker production. Its like the guy never has a week off. Other owners are fighting the waiver wire each week to get a K that will put up 8 points, while I get 12 points for free.

Its a minor difference really. I like the idea of binding the players to your roster if you want to start them on their bye. That's a sufficient penalty since they could get hurt, start to suck, etc. I just don't like the YTD points part.