Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
week 17 playoff championship-dumb? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ballstein
- Start date
lion_crazz
Footballguy
My league's championship is always on week 16. Never thought of having it any other way. Week 17 would be brutal because so many key players are not playing.
Captain Hook
Footballguy
This year may work out for your commish/league as the parity is at a level never seen before and many Week 17 games will determine NFL playoff berths..............however historically this has been a really bad idea with many teams resting players.......since the new labor agreement will likely be for an 18 week season, best to wait until we see how schedules look before your league changes the rule but I would send them an email with your intent to revisit and possibly voting on a rule change for 2011 season.
SieteCinco
Footballguy
A few teams every year already have a playoff spot and home field advantage locked up come week 17, and those teams will usually sit/rest their starters to eliminate further risk of injury and fatigue.
Perfect example is the Colts last year when they sat players in both weeks 16 and 17. They had a two score lead on the Jets, took out their starters, the Jets eventually caught up and went ahead in points but the coaching staff wouldn't let their players back into the game even though they were loosing. I remember watching Peyton Manning standing on the sidelines the rest of the guy obviously unhappy with the coaches decision.
This year things look to scrambled enough to where week 16 shouldn't be a problem for fantasy teams, but imagine your team making it all the way to the fantasy championship and seeing your star QB and RB leave the game after the first quarter because the team has nothing to play for.
I have even seen some leagues that end weeks 13-15, but think that is too early.
Perfect example is the Colts last year when they sat players in both weeks 16 and 17. They had a two score lead on the Jets, took out their starters, the Jets eventually caught up and went ahead in points but the coaching staff wouldn't let their players back into the game even though they were loosing. I remember watching Peyton Manning standing on the sidelines the rest of the guy obviously unhappy with the coaches decision.
This year things look to scrambled enough to where week 16 shouldn't be a problem for fantasy teams, but imagine your team making it all the way to the fantasy championship and seeing your star QB and RB leave the game after the first quarter because the team has nothing to play for.
I have even seen some leagues that end weeks 13-15, but think that is too early.
Black
Footballguy
He probably said that because Week 16 is the standard in FF.
My thoughts are that this discussion is on this board EVERY YEAR. Some leagues do week 16, some do week 17.The argument for not playing week 17 is that "a lot" of teams are resting players. That's just not true. Sometimes you get teams like the Colts last year who have a huge lead at the end of the season & sit players week 17, but it's not as common as people like to think. Look at the situation right now. The only team with a divisional lead larger than 1 game is KC. If they lose to SD today, they are back to a only a one game lead. Even if they win today, they are 1 game back of Pittsburgh for the #2 seed and a bye in the 1st round, so they probably won't be resting anyone. You can't predict what teams might be in a position to rest players, just like you can't predict injuries or weather.
Mark in Tennessee
Footballguy
Normally I would say week 16 should end the season. However, in my work league it was set-up to end in wk 17. I think/hope it works out for me since I have a good team and not an elite team. Hopefully I can out manage the stud team that makes it in against me, povided I can get there too.
Fear The Turtle
Footballguy
Right, 16 is the norm and most of my leagues use that. However, my longest running league uses 17 (along with several other different things like distance scoring, etc.) and I don't mind it at all. For one thing, one more week of ff. Secondly, it adds an extra factor to account for when drafting, trading, and WWing. A lot of ff sites are geared toward week 16 bowls, so week 17 gives the, dare I say, true shark a slight edge.
fsufan
Footballguy
looks like week 17 SBs will work out for leagues this year. I wish it would work out every year, I would like one more week of FF
faulkfan
Footballguy
We've done week 17 for all 21 years our $$ league has been running and while I certainly understand the concerns over teams resting their starters I also agree that you need to take that into account as an owner and be smart with the WW and managing your depth.
I lost our SB last year when all my QBs were either hurt or sitting due to having nothing to play for. I've also won playoff games due to this so it all evens out.
I like it because I get an extra week of FF and there is a challenge. Plus, I've done it that way longer than other way so I'm biased.
I lost our SB last year when all my QBs were either hurt or sitting due to having nothing to play for. I've also won playoff games due to this so it all evens out.
I like it because I get an extra week of FF and there is a challenge. Plus, I've done it that way longer than other way so I'm biased.
Wolfpacker
Footballguy
Exactly. We're still playing regular season ff this week - another chance to claim the weekly prize - and playoffs start next week. And I agree with the "extra factor". I've had Peyton Manning on my keeper team for years and have had to work around him on my bench in Week 17 because the Colts have clinched and I've still won championships. It's actually a lot of fun trying to figure out which waiver wire QB (or RB or WR) is going to help you in the end, especially when you know your opponent is doing the same thing.
