The RB position is essentially worthless (1 Viewer)

[Wonderllama]

When an old faded running back becomes a starter and you don't think he can succeed, just say to yourself "Tim Hightower" and pick him up.

 

[ghostguy123]

I do not agree. I mean, I agree about trying to win, you just don't have to have any drafted RBs to actually win in the first couple weeks. It probably helps I am sure, but I ccould easily see taking the hit to load up on the stud QBs, WRs, and TE and hope to squeak out maybe a 2-2 start.

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

 

[Arodin]

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

It is. But owners new to FF like the idea that weaker teams have a chance to recover midseason, and justify it with reference to the NFL draft order. It's the "game design theory" that every player should be "kept in the game" as long as possible, applied to FF.

Once owners grow up on this, it's hard to convince all but the sharkiest owners to change. Those less skilled inevitably recognize the truth that they will have that much harder time competing with those of superior skill if they have to give up this advantage.

So it persists in many long-term leagues.

 

[davearm]

I do not agree. I mean, I agree about trying to win, you just don't have to have any drafted RBs to actually win in the first couple weeks. It probably helps I am sure, but I ccould easily see taking the hit to load up on the stud QBs, WRs, and TE and hope to squeak out maybe a 2-2 start.

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

Would you say the way the NFL determines draft picks is silly and grossly unfair? It's the same concept: give the worst team the first/best chance to improve.

 

[Arodin]

I do not agree. I mean, I agree about trying to win, you just don't have to have any drafted RBs to actually win in the first couple weeks. It probably helps I am sure, but I ccould easily see taking the hit to load up on the stud QBs, WRs, and TE and hope to squeak out maybe a 2-2 start.

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

Would you say the way the NFL determines draft picks is silly and grossly unfair? It's the same concept: give the worst team the first/best chance to improve.

Big difference is one is between-seasons, the other is in-season. I think even dynasty teams with rolling waiver priority still order their rookie draft worst-to-first.

Apples to oranges, though the attempted comparison is the most common justification of weekly worst-to-first waivers.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

 

[Chaka]

or get with the times and switch to start 1 RB

we start 3 WR 1 RB 1 W/R Flex 1 TE

next year we may switch to start 2 WR 1 RB 1 W/R 1 W/R/TE 1 TE

the league does not value RBs why should FF?

we go with 3 rbs in ppr and I find it a lot more interesting. Brings value to more players which is a good thing.

I would never play in a 1 rb league..boring imo

How many QBs do you start?

 

[BobbyLayne]

or get with the times and switch to start 1 RB

we start 3 WR 1 RB 1 W/R Flex 1 TE

next year we may switch to start 2 WR 1 RB 1 W/R 1 W/R/TE 1 TE

the league does not value RBs why should FF?

we go with 3 rbs in ppr and I find it a lot more interesting. Brings value to more players which is a good thing.

I would never play in a 1 rb league..boring imo

How many QBs do you start?

wan

So we've decided to add one starter and two bench spots.

QB WR WR WR RB RB FLEX (WR/RB/TE) TE K DST 8 BENCH

Makes it 12 x 18, starters increased from 9 to 10 (after 22 years of being a 9 starter league, this should be fun), and we brought back the second required RB we used to have.

 

[Chaka]

I do not agree. I mean, I agree about trying to win, you just don't have to have any drafted RBs to actually win in the first couple weeks. It probably helps I am sure, but I ccould easily see taking the hit to load up on the stud QBs, WRs, and TE and hope to squeak out maybe a 2-2 start.

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

Would you say the way the NFL determines draft picks is silly and grossly unfair? It's the same concept: give the worst team the first/best chance to improve.

Big difference is one is between-seasons, the other is in-season. I think even dynasty teams with rolling waiver priority still order their rookie draft worst-to-first.

Apples to oranges, though the attempted comparison is the most common justification of weekly worst-to-first waivers.

Don't NFL in season waivers also work on a worst-to-first basis?

Either way I prefer blind-bid waivers.

 

[Chaka]

or get with the times and switch to start 1 RB

we start 3 WR 1 RB 1 W/R Flex 1 TE

next year we may switch to start 2 WR 1 RB 1 W/R 1 W/R/TE 1 TE

the league does not value RBs why should FF?

we go with 3 rbs in ppr and I find it a lot more interesting. Brings value to more players which is a good thing.

I would never play in a 1 rb league..boring imo

How many QBs do you start?

wan

So we've decided to add one starter and two bench spots.

QB WR WR WR RB RB FLEX (WR/RB/TE) TE K DST 8 BENCH

Makes it 12 x 18, starters increased from 9 to 10 (after 22 years of being a 9 starter league, this should be fun), and we brought back the second required RB we used to have.

I was talking to theplayer11, saying that using more RBs adds value to the position is correct. But the vast majority of leagues start only one QB (the most important player in real football) and that has always been bizarre to me. Six point TDs barely add any value to the QB position but nothing adds value like positional scarcity.

 

[BobbyLayne]

or get with the times and switch to start 1 RB

we start 3 WR 1 RB 1 W/R Flex 1 TE

next year we may switch to start 2 WR 1 RB 1 W/R 1 W/R/TE 1 TE

the league does not value RBs why should FF?

we go with 3 rbs in ppr and I find it a lot more interesting. Brings value to more players which is a good thing.

I would never play in a 1 rb league..boring imo

How many QBs do you start?

wan

So we've decided to add one starter and two bench spots.

QB WR WR WR RB RB FLEX (WR/RB/TE) TE K DST 8 BENCH

Makes it 12 x 18, starters increased from 9 to 10 (after 22 years of being a 9 starter league, this should be fun), and we brought back the second required RB we used to have.

I was talking to theplayer11, saying that using more RBs adds value to the position is correct. But the vast majority of leagues start only one QB (the most important player in real football) and that has always been bizarre to me. Six point TDs barely add any value to the QB position but nothing adds value like positional scarcity.

We often see two RBs on the field at the same time. Three or four wideouts, super common these days. Two tight end sets in short yardage, or sometimes just to take advantage of positional strength.

Haven't seen two QBs at once except in rare instances or the days of Slash Stewart.

 

[Chaka]

or get with the times and switch to start 1 RB

we start 3 WR 1 RB 1 W/R Flex 1 TE

next year we may switch to start 2 WR 1 RB 1 W/R 1 W/R/TE 1 TE

the league does not value RBs why should FF?

we go with 3 rbs in ppr and I find it a lot more interesting. Brings value to more players which is a good thing.

I would never play in a 1 rb league..boring imo

How many QBs do you start?

wan

So we've decided to add one starter and two bench spots.

QB WR WR WR RB RB FLEX (WR/RB/TE) TE K DST 8 BENCH

Makes it 12 x 18, starters increased from 9 to 10 (after 22 years of being a 9 starter league, this should be fun), and we brought back the second required RB we used to have.

I was talking to theplayer11, saying that using more RBs adds value to the position is correct. But the vast majority of leagues start only one QB (the most important player in real football) and that has always been bizarre to me. Six point TDs barely add any value to the QB position but nothing adds value like positional scarcity.

We often see two RBs on the field at the same time. Three or four wideouts, super common these days. Two tight end sets in short yardage, or sometimes just to take advantage of positional strength.

Haven't seen two QBs at once except in rare instances or the days of Slash Stewart.

We don't often see two lead RBs on the field at the same time (blocking or passing back + a lead back sure but I seldom saw Karlos Williams and LeSean McCoy at the same time, or Jeremy Hill & Giovanni Bernard, or Adrian Peterson and Jerrick McKinnon. Did DeAngelo Williams see the field at the same time as Leveon Bell? Ingram & Khiry? Langford & Forte?) but let's not split hairs about that because technically you are correct.

How many times do you see three RBs on the field at the same time? How many NFL games end with decimal scoring? Or how many points does an NFL team get per yard rushing or passing? Did any NFL team win specifically because their WRs caught more passes than the other teams WRs?

We play magic football, let's not pretend that it resembles real football on any level except for the players involved. I always smh when I read about fantasy teams picking up a QB like Jameis Winston, Blake Bortles, Ryan Fitzpatrick etc on the waiver wire in week 10 or whatever. It completely devalues that position and puts it on the same level as kickers and team defenses. It's crazy.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I always smh when I read about fantasy teams picking up a QB like Jameis Winston, Blake Bortles, Ryan Fitzpatrick etc on the waiver wire in week 10 or whatever.

As do I, except it doesn't happen in the league I play in. Pretty much everyone carries two QBs (I often switch to one for the playoffs but boy that would have sucked if you were a Dalton owner this year.)

Since there are almost always 22-25 QBs rostered, we tend not to have the issue you are raising. 22 year league, et al.

 

[Chaka]

I always smh when I read about fantasy teams picking up a QB like Jameis Winston, Blake Bortles, Ryan Fitzpatrick etc on the waiver wire in week 10 or whatever.

As do I, except it doesn't happen in the league I play in. Pretty much everyone carries two QBs (I often switch to one for the playoffs but boy that would have sucked if you were a Dalton owner this year.)

Since there are almost always 22-25 QBs rostered, we tend not to have the issue you are raising. 22 year league, et al.

Prudent.

How many are drafted in the first round of your league every year? First three rounds?

 

[BobbyLayne]

I always smh when I read about fantasy teams picking up a QB like Jameis Winston, Blake Bortles, Ryan Fitzpatrick etc on the waiver wire in week 10 or whatever.

As do I, except it doesn't happen in the league I play in. Pretty much everyone carries two QBs (I often switch to one for the playoffs but boy that would have sucked if you were a Dalton owner this year.)

Since there are almost always 22-25 QBs rostered, we tend not to have the issue you are raising. 22 year league, et al.

Prudent.

How many are drafted in the first round of your league every year? First three rounds?

Depends on the year. Typically 0/1 in the 1st, and 1-2 by the end of the third. But I know one guy took Peyton every year for about a decade. And there was one year in the last 5-6 years (I forget which) in which QBs were flying off the board, like 3-4 in the first two rounds. That was an exceptional draft. But folks don't wait too long. Usually by the end of the 6th or 7th I'm the only one without a QB. 4 point TD.

I'm pretty much the only guy who almost always goes WR-WR or takes 3-4 WR/TE in the first five rounds. Thinking that will change next year since I finish 1st/2nd in points every year, but who knows. Half of the guys are still in RB-RB or RB-WR-RB-RB mode. Full PPR.

I do make exceptions if guys fall. I took Forsett about 12-15 past his ADP this year and later traded him for AR15. Guy had rode him to the championship in 2014, he was thrilled. He hasn't been very friendly to me lately.

 

[Chaka]

Depends on the year. Typically 0/1 in the 1st, and 1-2 by the end of the third. But I know one guy took Peyton every year for about a decade. And there was one year in the last 5-6 years (I forget which) in which QBs were flying off the board, like 3-4 in the first two rounds. That was an exceptional draft. But folks don't wait too long. Usually by the end of the 6th or 7th I'm the only one without a QB. 4 point TD.

That still seems to horribly devalue the QB position. I could understand that if their NFL contribution was on par with kickers but they are the players that make teams go. In my 12 team super-flex league we see about 6 QBs go off the board in the first round and 12 or so by the end of the second. Last starting QB is typically off the board around the 8th round.

Hey I'm all for whatever works for anyone else but that doesn't mean I have to understand it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

It is. But owners new to FF like the idea that weaker teams have a chance to recover midseason, and justify it with reference to the NFL draft order. It's the "game design theory" that every player should be "kept in the game" as long as possible, applied to FF. Once owners grow up on this, it's hard to convince all but the sharkiest owners to change. Those less skilled inevitably recognize the truth that they will have that much harder time competing with those of superior skill if they have to give up this advantage.

So it persists in many long-term leagues.

Then go by total points not head to head. Seen a lot of 1-3 teams that are better than 3-1 and even 4-0 teams.

Still terrible though. If ur not as good ur not as good.

 

[ghostguy123]

I do not agree. I mean, I agree about trying to win, you just don't have to have any drafted RBs to actually win in the first couple weeks. It probably helps I am sure, but I ccould easily see taking the hit to load up on the stud QBs, WRs, and TE and hope to squeak out maybe a 2-2 start.

Don't forget to factor in that by starting 2-2 your waiver position will be better for snatching up the proper backups as starters begin to fall...

I have never played in a league that does waivers that way and pray i never do. Sounds silly and grossly unfair

Would you say the way the NFL determines draft picks is silly and grossly unfair? It's the same concept: give the worst team the first/best chance to improve.

Very horrible comparison.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

 

[cvnpoka]

or get with the times and switch to start 1 RB

we start 3 WR 1 RB 1 W/R Flex 1 TE

next year we may switch to start 2 WR 1 RB 1 W/R 1 W/R/TE 1 TE

the league does not value RBs why should FF?

In one of my leagues, we switched to needing to only start 1 of each position, then we have 3 WE/RB/TE flex spots. Just more flexibility with how to build your team. The main reason for doing it was since more and more teams are going to RBBC, it's not always easy to be able to start 2 RBs every week and feel good about it.

Our dynasty set up is:

- 1 QB

- 1 RB

- 2 WR

- 1 Offensive Flex can be > TE/WR/RB

RBs can easily produce MORE and more consistent points than WRs/TEs so the key in our league is to find 2 top RBs, i've dominated and the reason is I target always having the top RBs, not just at the beginning of the season because their are a ton of injuries and projections tend to be wrong so I developed a strategy to try to always have two of the top RBs.

- You have to scout in the off-season. Check out as many RBs as you can. Look at the guys who are already sitting on NFL rosters and the situations on those teams. Basically have a solid list of guys you like and whittle it down to guys you think can turn into TOP BACKS that you like and look for opportunities to grab those backs if they ever become available either on the wire or in trade.

- Get rid of the junk RBs on your roster. Guys who are 'ok' but will never be a top RB. Bundle them together and trade them to teams you know need RBs and are threats to pick up one of the guys you have targeted or if they have a guy you like languishing on their bench and you have 'ok' guys producing 'ok' numbers then try to get your guy.

- Judicious use of the waiver wire. RBs get injured. Guys who were considered top guys at the start of the season will disappoint so at the start of the year don't blow your WW spot. Let others burn their wire position grabbing RBs early in the season while you sit and wait for a guy to emerge later in the season, i.e. CJ Anderson/Thomas Rawls/etc.

Scouting.

Get rid of junk.

Waiver wire.

or just predict the future.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Depends on the year. Typically 0/1 in the 1st, and 1-2 by the end of the third. But I know one guy took Peyton every year for about a decade. And there was one year in the last 5-6 years (I forget which) in which QBs were flying off the board, like 3-4 in the first two rounds. That was an exceptional draft. But folks don't wait too long. Usually by the end of the 6th or 7th I'm the only one without a QB. 4 point TD.

That still seems to horribly devalue the QB position. I could understand that if their NFL contribution was on par with kickers but they are the players that make teams go. In my 12 team super-flex league we see about 6 QBs go off the board in the first round and 12 or so by the end of the second. Last starting QB is typically off the board around the 8th round.

Hey I'm all for whatever works for anyone else but that doesn't mean I have to understand it.

I would never want to play in a 2 QB league. Just seems like drudgery. 64-96 starting wide receivers (hell, Arizona has a WR4/5 that are better than every team's WR3.) 32 RBs, lot of them are RBBC so really the pool is much larger. 32 TEs. Easy to divvy those up to 12 starting lineups. But forcing people to roster Cassel, Gabbert & Weeden? Good lawd, no thanks.

But hey, takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Could not agree more with this thread .

Try to get a top notch RB1 as soon as you can in your draft.

Like Charles? Or Bell? Or Forte? Or DeMarco? Or Lynch? Or Lacy? Or CJ Anderson?

What can you say?....some years you'll eat the bear....other years the bear will eat you....I don't advocate waiting until the 7th to throw #### against the wall to see if it sticks IF there's a top notch guy there.

I didn't think DeMarco and Anderson were top notch RB1s. Injuries are tough to predict...but Bell, Charles and Lynch (all top notch RB1s in my book) all had hyped backups. There was no reason their owners shouldn't have had their backups. Lacy was huge disapointment and almost burned me....if I didn't heed my own advice and get Rawls/Dion Lewis/James White/Karlos Williams and DeAngelo Williams.

I get what you are saying, but nowadays 1st and 2nd round WRs in FF are far less likely to bust than 1st and 2nd round RBs; it's been that way for several years now. I'd rather load up with two stud WRs and take my chances with RB later than doing it the other way.

Cobb, Jordy, Dez, Evans, Hilton, Allen, Calvin, D Thomas, Benjamin?Not necessary saying you're wrong, but do you have any data to back up that claim? I'm not sure if I agree that more early RBs bust, maybe its just easier to replace WRs.

Jordy and Benjamin were injured before most drafts and Hilton and Allen were drafted in the 3rd round or later. So yes WRs do get injured and underperform but not at the rate of RBs...at least this year.

According to real drafts from MFL, 7 of the top 12 WRs drafted this year were busts, only 2 as a result of injury. 8 of the top 12 RBs drafted were busts, 4 of them due to injury. This ignores guys like Jordy & Benjamin, but it also ignores guys like Lewis, Candle, Gordon, etc.Someone else can compare historical ADP to injuries, it this seams like a case of RBs being easier for FF owners to replace. Dez gets hurt, DT can't find the end zone, plug in Burns, Baldwin, J Jones, R Matthews, etc. Charles gets hurt, hope you had his handcuff, or that its a small enough league that he's still available, or start Sims, Cromwell, etc.

Most of the top 32 RBs were drafted in my leagues; about 1/3 of the top 32 WR were WW pickups.

Demaryius was not a bust. He is the 11th ranked WR in PPR. That is a not a bust.

Like has been said, Jordy and Benjamin were hurt before most drafts.

Julio, A. Brown, Beckham, Demaryius, AJ Green and Hopkins were all WRs who went in the first two rounds who were number 1 WRs this season. Even Megatron, while a slight disappointment, is the 14th ranked WR, which isn't really a bust (he was a 2nd rounder this year). Someone can finish slightly behind the number they went at their position and not be a bust.

 

[Biabreakable]

I like 2 QB leagues because of the scarcity issue it presents giving QB more value relative to other positions. Just as having more than one starting RB does. For the same reason I enjoy start 2 TE leagues.

That said it is hard to make 2QB starting work in a 16 team league. I think it can work fine in a 10 or 12 team league but with 16 and requiring 2 QB start,this is a problem that will likely need other rules to support it. Such as limiting teams to only rostering 2 QB (I hate rules like this that don't allow owners to do what they want) or use team QB or something to keep the league from becoming so much about hoarding a finite resource.

2QB may become more viable for a 16 team league if the NFL expanded to 36 teams or more but as it stands 2QB leagues should likely not be more than 12 teams. 24 QB starting is 75% of the available starting QB in the NFL so it makes the QB very valuable but it isn't completely unmanageable for teams trying to trade for or aquire/develop new QB talent for their FF teams.

 

[lazyike]

Handcuffs are so tough to identify. I remember early this year that Kniles Davis was considered one of the top handcuffs to own. We all know how that worked out. I remember watching Matthew Barry and Tim Hasselback saying to go after Cameron Artis Payne just 2 weeks ago. That too sucked. There are a lot of swings and misses when picking up RBs and it takes some real luck to get the right one. As far as the waiver wire goes how did that Denard Robinson and Bryce Brown pickup work for everyone the last couple weeks? I hit on Hightower this year and Rawls (until he was injured) but feel I was very lucky.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

 

[Arodin]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

NFL waivers is a poor comparison, unless your fantasy leagues routinely have 40+ roster sizes. In FF, most leagues don't give you enough bench spots to "pre-stash" all your favorite prospects, because folks like having meaningful moves to make in season I suppose.

In my perfect world, rosters would be 40 deep (60 in IDP leagues) and the waiver wire would be used for emergency depth only. I'm odd.

 

[Alkahsu]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

 

[Biabreakable]

Handcuffs are so tough to identify. I remember early this year that Kniles Davis was considered one of the top handcuffs to own. We all know how that worked out. I remember watching Matthew Barry and Tim Hasselback saying to go after Cameron Artis Payne just 2 weeks ago. That too sucked. There are a lot of swings and misses when picking up RBs and it takes some real luck to get the right one. As far as the waiver wire goes how did that Denard Robinson and Bryce Brown pickup work for everyone the last couple weeks? I hit on Hightower this year and Rawls (until he was injured) but feel I was very lucky.

Well I am sure you are correct that many people were saying Davis was the handcuff but that does not mean everyone thought that. West was identified and discussed here during the preseason and it seemed pretty unanimous that West would be the proffered handcuff as of 29 August.

I do not know why you or anyone would listen to Matthew Barry, a ken doll has comparable football knowledge.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

NFL waivers is a poor comparison, unless your fantasy leagues routinely have 40+ roster sizes. In FF, most leagues don't give you enough bench spots to "pre-stash" all your favorite prospects, because folks like having meaningful moves to make in season I suppose.

In my perfect world, rosters would be 40 deep (60 in IDP leagues) and the waiver wire would be used for emergency depth only. I'm odd.

NFL teams roster about the same number of skill position players as a typical fantasy league team (2-3 QBs, 4-5 RBs, 5-6 WRs, a couple TEs, etc.), so I'm not buying this distinction.

 

[Army Eye]

A lot of 'stud' RBs have been made to look very expendable this year. A guy whose production is never even approached by his backups is Arian Foster. That's a legit stud RB right there

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

 

[Alkahsu]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

Depends on the context and how you define worse.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

Depends on the context and how you define worse.

The context is football and worse is defined by record.

 

[Alkahsu]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

Depends on the context and how you define worse.

The context is football and worse is defined by record.

So the team that scores 115 points and loses week 1 is worse than the team that scores 85 and wins by your definition. Wouldn't you think the team that scored 85 needs to improve more than the team that scores 115?

 

[Chaka]

Depends on the year. Typically 0/1 in the 1st, and 1-2 by the end of the third. But I know one guy took Peyton every year for about a decade. And there was one year in the last 5-6 years (I forget which) in which QBs were flying off the board, like 3-4 in the first two rounds. That was an exceptional draft. But folks don't wait too long. Usually by the end of the 6th or 7th I'm the only one without a QB. 4 point TD.

That still seems to horribly devalue the QB position. I could understand that if their NFL contribution was on par with kickers but they are the players that make teams go. In my 12 team super-flex league we see about 6 QBs go off the board in the first round and 12 or so by the end of the second. Last starting QB is typically off the board around the 8th round.

Hey I'm all for whatever works for anyone else but that doesn't mean I have to understand it.

I would never want to play in a 2 QB league. Just seems like drudgery. 64-96 starting wide receivers (hell, Arizona has a WR4/5 that are better than every team's WR3.) 32 RBs, lot of them are RBBC so really the pool is much larger. 32 TEs. Easy to divvy those up to 12 starting lineups. But forcing people to roster Cassel, Gabbert & Weeden? Good lawd, no thanks.

But hey, takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

It's a super-flex meaning you can flex a QB, it's not mandatory. But I am not sure what you are talking about with 64-96 WRs and all that, do you draft that many? And only 32 RBs? EIther way I am pretty sure the 64th WR is on par with Gabbert, Cassel & Weeden.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

Depends on the context and how you define worse.

The context is football and worse is defined by record.

So the team that scores 115 points and loses week 1 is worse than the team that scores 85 and wins by your definition. Wouldn't you think the team that scored 85 needs to improve more than the team that scores 115?

Fine by me to use points as the criterion.

I'll ask again: do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

 

[Arodin]

Fine by me to use points as the criterion.

I'll ask again: do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

I'll answer that: it is unfair to give one team an advantage over others in acquisitions, regardless of their respective performances.

We often accept this unfairness in order to make the game we play more interesting. So does the NFL with the way they order their rookie draft.

Many games allow this sort of handicapping in various ways. At issue here is whether it makes FF better or worse to allow this particular one.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Real football isn't magic football. You can start there.

If I put 50 bucks in, and you put 50 bucks in, I will be ### damned if you get to pick up the best waiver guy if you have a nice team but happened to get unlucky and lose your first couple games while scoring in the top 3 each week. Or if you team just sucks.

So lame. Make it fair and go with bidding bucks. The tiebreaker on that can be your worse record or lowest point total or whatever.

Punish others because your team sucks??? No way. Even worse punish others when someone else has a great team but got unlucky for a week or two? Hell no.

Now, as for the NFL, the NFL is an actual real life business that lasts many many years. The worse teams get the higher picks to make an attempt to create a long term level playing field. Again, it is a BUSINESS. It is a LEAGUE. The goal of that league is to make money. Creating at least some semblance of parody helps that (in their opinion).

Fantasy football is not anything remotely close to this. There is no "league" that needs to profit. Fantasy football is about the individual owners, not the league. In dynasty you want the league to continue, which is done by giving higher picks to worse teams, same as the NFL. Makes sense to do that and that only. Waivers??? No way. There are far too many times where excellent teams would be awarded waiver priority early in the season. Way too many.

LIke I said, I could go on and on and on, but if you dont get it, you dont get it

You are blatantly promoting unfair waivers when you could easily just make them fair. Just seems silly

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

NFL waivers is a poor comparison, unless your fantasy leagues routinely have 40+ roster sizes. In FF, most leagues don't give you enough bench spots to "pre-stash" all your favorite prospects, because folks like having meaningful moves to make in season I suppose.

In my perfect world, rosters would be 40 deep (60 in IDP leagues) and the waiver wire would be used for emergency depth only. I'm odd.

NFL teams roster about the same number of skill position players as a typical fantasy league team (2-3 QBs, 4-5 RBs, 5-6 WRs, a couple TEs, etc.), so I'm not buying this distinction.

32 teams vs 12. So dumb

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

In redraft completely UNFAIR.

In dynasty, that is what the draft is for.

 

[Alkahsu]

Fine by me to use points as the criterion.

I'll ask again: do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

I'm using record per your definition, one of those teams is 1-0 the other is 0-1.

In this scenario the 1-0 team that got lucky to win is a better team than the team that had an unlucky match up and lost (per your definition) even though if the opponents were switched you'd have the opposite result. Are you changing the definition of a worse team now? We need to be consistent if we want to have a constructive discussion.

 

[ghostguy123]

Fine by me to use points as the criterion.

I'll ask again: do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

I'm using record per your definition, one of those teams is 1-0 the other is 0-1.

In this scenario the 1-0 team that got lucky to win is a better team than the team that had an unlucky match up and lost (per your definition) even though if the opponents were switched you'd have the opposite result. Are you changing the definition of a worse team now? We need to be consistent if we want to have a constructive discussion.

Either way is silly for waivers.

Everyone pays the same to play. If you are a worse player you should be helped by the rules???? Hell no.

The only reason worse teams get the higher pick in dynasty is because the league wouldn't last more than a couple years without it. In redraft, just dumb. It start over every year anyway.

 

[ghostguy123]

So speaking of RB values and being worthless, in a dynasty league, question for Bell owners. What kind of deal would it take to pry him away from you?

He is easily the #1 or #2 dynasty RB heading into 2016, so what would it take?

 

[lazyike]

Handcuffs are so tough to identify. I remember early this year that Kniles Davis was considered one of the top handcuffs to own. We all know how that worked out. I remember watching Matthew Barry and Tim Hasselback saying to go after Cameron Artis Payne just 2 weeks ago. That too sucked. There are a lot of swings and misses when picking up RBs and it takes some real luck to get the right one. As far as the waiver wire goes how did that Denard Robinson and Bryce Brown pickup work for everyone the last couple weeks? I hit on Hightower this year and Rawls (until he was injured) but feel I was very lucky.

Well I am sure you are correct that many people were saying Davis was the handcuff but that does not mean everyone thought that. West was identified and discussed here during the preseason and it seemed pretty unanimous that West would be the proffered handcuff as of 29 August.

I do not know why you or anyone would listen to Matthew Barry, a ken doll has comparable football knowledge.

I love it when people think they are so smart and a dude who has close access to ESPN reporters who attend every team's practices, does that for a living, wouldn't have some obvious advantages over people like you and me. Most of us have jobs that keep us away from doing as much research. Maybe he is not the smartest guy around but if he says " I have been talking to reporters at Panthers practices who tell me the Panther coaches are saying Payne would be the guy if Stewart goes down" thats an opinion that carries more weight than most of the posters on this website.

 

[davearm]

Fine by me to use points as the criterion.

I'll ask again: do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

I'm using record per your definition, one of those teams is 1-0 the other is 0-1.

In this scenario the 1-0 team that got lucky to win is a better team than the team that had an unlucky match up and lost (per your definition) even though if the opponents were switched you'd have the opposite result. Are you changing the definition of a worse team now? We need to be consistent if we want to have a constructive discussion.

I'm not changing the definition of worse. I'm letting you pick it.

The reason being, the method we use to order teams from best to worst is really immaterial to the question I'm asking. No matter the process, the fundamental fairness question I'm asking is the same.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

Comparing an entire season to a week is a horrible comparison. It really is pretty obvious, Ghostguy is right.

Do you think that it's fair or unfair to have a system that allows worse teams a better opportunity to improve than the better teams have?

In redraft completely UNFAIR.

In dynasty, that is what the draft is for.

So if I understand you correctly, you agree with the way the NFL determines its draft order, but disagree with the way it sets the waiver order throughout the regular season. Is that right?

In both cases, they give the worst team the first/best chance to improve themselves.

 

[davearm]

I don't see the big difference there at all. Why is it OK to try and help a worse team get better from one season to the next, at the expense of the better teams, but not OK to do the very same thing from week to week? Seems totally arbitrary.

If you dont see all the differences incorporated into all that right now, then you never will, and there is no point trying to explain it.

Thanks for such a snide non-answer.

I suspect if the explanation was indeed so abundantly obvious, that you would have no hesitation about sharing it with the rest of the board, and could have come up with a much more scathing critique of my intellect in the process.

FWIW, the NFL also sets their waiver priority in inverse order of the standings, so I guess I can take solace in knowing that I've got good company in not grasping this important distinction.

NFL waivers is a poor comparison, unless your fantasy leagues routinely have 40+ roster sizes. In FF, most leagues don't give you enough bench spots to "pre-stash" all your favorite prospects, because folks like having meaningful moves to make in season I suppose.

In my perfect world, rosters would be 40 deep (60 in IDP leagues) and the waiver wire would be used for emergency depth only. I'm odd.

NFL teams roster about the same number of skill position players as a typical fantasy league team (2-3 QBs, 4-5 RBs, 5-6 WRs, a couple TEs, etc.), so I'm not buying this distinction.

32 teams vs 12. So dumb

You're getting really lost in irrelevant minutiae.

The question I'm asking doesn't hinge on how many teams are involved. It could be 2 or 2,000.

 

[lod01]

So speaking of RB values and being worthless, in a dynasty league, question for Bell owners. What kind of deal would it take to pry him away from you?

He is easily the #1 or #2 dynasty RB heading into 2016, so what would it take?

It's so hard to get a guy like Bell, I have a hard time thinking what would get him off my team......that another owner would actually offer. I certainly would take the ridiculous, like Beckham but no one is going to offer him.

And I am loaded at RB: Bell, Miller, Freeman, Anderson. 2 of which are set to hit the FA market.

 

[tangfoot]

And I am loaded at RB: Bell, Miller, Freeman, Anderson. 2 of which are set to hit the FA market.

No you're not.

Injured, question mark where he'll land, question mark regarding usage, sucked.

 

[DropKick]

And I am loaded at RB: Bell, Miller, Freeman, Anderson. 2 of which are set to hit the FA market.

No you're not.

Injured, question mark where he'll land, question mark regarding usage, sucked.

Not the worst group of RBs to have but I get the point - people tend to over-value their guys and the league is in a constant state of change. Last year's champ came into this season thinking he was loaded with Bell, Demarco Murray and Jeremy Hill.

Can't say I blame him for being confident but he drafted a bunch of flyers at WR and pretty much ignored the RB position.