The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:The problem is last year if you needed a player on either side of the ball you were screwed.

I personally can't stand IDP's but I've adjusted.

BTW DS, defense doesn't win championships anymore.

You don't think the Giants defense played a major part in both their wins over the Pats? I understand a couple lucky offensive plays but they were able to "somewhat" control Brady and that itself is HUGE

Exactly! If the Patsies defense was as good, they would have won both games. Defense still wins championships. Always has, always will. And it's funny that you hate IDPs but are so proud of your new avatar.

I just remember back to how simple and fun fantasy football was at first. everyone had a chance to win every week. It's gotten complicated in the last two years or so with all the additions.

I love defense don't get me wrong. The Pats would have won if Welker caught that ball, and yall would be singin a different tune.

I'm also very proud of my new avatar! Kerrigan is a beast.

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:The problem is last year if you needed a player on either side of the ball you were screwed.

I personally can't stand IDP's but I've adjusted.

BTW DS, defense doesn't win championships anymore.

You don't think the Giants defense played a major part in both their wins over the Pats? I understand a couple lucky offensive plays but they were able to "somewhat" control Brady and that itself is HUGE

Exactly! If the Patsies defense was as good, they would have won both games. Defense still wins championships. Always has, always will. And it's funny that you hate IDPs but are so proud of your new avatar.

I just remember back to how simple and fun fantasy football was at first. everyone had a chance to win every week. It's gotten complicated in the last two years or so with all the additions.

I love defense don't get me wrong. The Pats would have won if Welker caught that ball, and yall would be singin a different tune.

I'm also very proud of my new avatar! Kerrigan is a beast.

You do know that IDPs have been in fantasy football since the beginning right?

To me its a very novice league just having offense and defenses when IDPs do so much for the game and should get their proper appreication. IMO.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:The problem is last year if you needed a player on either side of the ball you were screwed.

I personally can't stand IDP's but I've adjusted.

BTW DS, defense doesn't win championships anymore.

You don't think the Giants defense played a major part in both their wins over the Pats? I understand a couple lucky offensive plays but they were able to "somewhat" control Brady and that itself is HUGE

Exactly! If the Patsies defense was as good, they would have won both games. Defense still wins championships. Always has, always will. And it's funny that you hate IDPs but are so proud of your new avatar.

I just remember back to how simple and fun fantasy football was at first. everyone had a chance to win every week. It's gotten complicated in the last two years or so with all the additions.

I love defense don't get me wrong. The Pats would have won if Welker caught that ball, and yall would be singin a different tune.

I'm also very proud of my new avatar! Kerrigan is a beast.

You do know that IDPs have been in fantasy football since the beginning right?

To me its a very novice league just having offense and defenses when IDPs do so much for the game and should get their proper appreication. IMO.

You do know that I am always right don't you?

langleyparkjoe wrote:To me its a very novice league just having offense and defenses when IDPs do so much for the game and should get their proper appreication. IMO.

Well then why are you cutting the number down?

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:To me its a very novice league just having offense and defenses when IDPs do so much for the game and should get their proper appreication. IMO.

Well then why are you cutting the number down?

To accommodate the people who couldn't handle it.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:To me its a very novice league just having offense and defenses when IDPs do so much for the game and should get their proper appreication. IMO.

Well then why are you cutting the number down?

To accommodate the people who couldn't handle it.

You should cut them, not the IDPs.

I will adjust to whatever you guys want to do. I would just like to have a better free agency pool in case of injuries etc...

ATX_Skins wrote:I will adjust to whatever you guys want to do. I would just like to have a better free agency pool in case of injuries etc...

So you too are in agreement with less bench players.

Good, thanks for letting me know.. I think 5 is the best number to go with.

Just make sure you guys draft accordingly because emphasis is now on how you draft unlike the previous seasons.

Someone tell me Wtf IDP stands for? Sob

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Someone tell me Wtf IDP stands for? Sob

Individual Defensive Players

So basically not just defenses alone we're working with but also defensive players.

1- LB
1- DB
1- Defensive Flex meaning you can use a LB, DB or even a DL if you'd like.

Trust me bro, once you do a league with IDPs, going back to novice leagues are a total buzzkill.

Another advantage to having IDPs score as much as offensive players is that it makes the draft much more interesting. In my league there are still good offensive players on the board in the late rounds, because defensive stars go off the board as early as the offensive ones.

Ahhhh sounds pretty cool

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Surely its a case of the smaller the bench the more skillful a game it is....?

Yes and no. If it's too easy to find replacements (small bench, lots of FAs) then it's just who has big games. If it's hard to find replacements (big bench, sparse FAs) you need more skill to pick guys to fill in.

It's about equating the importance of weekly management vs. the importance of drafting well.

I'm not suggesting we do this but if we got rid of flex then there would be 14 more pretty good FAs available. Is that good?

LPJ - I went to Parkdale High!


DarthMonk

I like flex for the 2 TE set...

Right now a 46 yard TD pass is worth more to a QB than 10 solo tackles are to a LB.

It's also worth more than 20 carries for 99 yards by a RB.

DarthMonk

Doesn't sound 2 legit to me... The hell that even means

DarthMonk wrote:Right now a 46 yard TD pass is worth more to a QB than 10 solo tackles are to a LB.

It's also worth more than 20 carries for 99 yards by a RB.

DarthMonk

So exactly what is your point here Darth?

QB; 46 yards- 3.1 points, 46 yard + TD- 1 bonus point, TD- 6 points. Total of 10.1 points.

LB; 10 points.

RB; 9.9 points.

Now if that RB breaks a 40 yarder + TD he'll get a bonus of 2 points added to that.

So your saying what here, you want what done.. less points for QB? More for IDP? Cause I'll be honest, I'm not raising it up to 3 points per tackle but I'll think about changing it to maybe 2 points max and to balance it out I'll raise the sacks/ints/etc up 1 point as well.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Right now a 46 yard TD pass is worth more to a QB than 10 solo tackles are to a LB.

It's also worth more than 20 carries for 99 yards by a RB.

DarthMonk

So exactly what is your point here Darth?

QB; 46 yards- 3.1 points, 46 yard + TD- 1 bonus point, TD- 6 points. Total of 10.1 points.

LB; 10 points.

RB; 9.9 points.

Now if that RB breaks a 40 yarder + TD he'll get a bonus of 2 points added to that.

So your saying what here, you want what done.. less points for QB? More for IDP? Cause I'll be honest, I'm not raising it up to 3 points per tackle but I'll think about changing it to maybe 2 points max and to balance it out I'll raise the sacks/ints/etc up 1 point as well.

I'm just chiming in. Right now Rex Grossman can close his eyes, throw a bad pass, have Royster take it 46 yards and he just scored more than Fletch making 10 tackles or Helu carrying the ball 20 times for 99 yards. That seems wrong to me. Others are talking about making IDPs as valuable as other guys. At this point it's not close. You know I think 15 yards per point makes QBs way to valuable. It's just more info for everyone to sift through as they make suggestions and vote.

I'll adjust to whatever the final rules are and kick ass either way but I'm just laying out what I think are interesting facts that are relevent to the discussion.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

PS - I'm not upset by any of this. We all will have the same rules. But since we are discussing I'm putting all my thoughts out there. It's a good league cuz we're in it and none of us are gonna bail after we lose a few games or get busy - and we all love the Redskins.

PPS - I thiink the current setting have 16 teams and 6 on the bench with 6 playoff teams.

DarthMonk

I don't mind playing with all the IDP's, but putting them in the same point category as offensive players will have me deleting my name from the league.

It's fantasy football, not reality football no matter how much people like defense.

We are potentially turning a fun league into a monster of stat keeping and research.

DarthMonk should start another league where it's defensive players only

ATX_Skins wrote:I don't mind playing with all the IDP's, but putting them in the same point category as offensive players will have me deleting my name from the league.

It's fantasy football, not reality football no matter how much people like defense.

We are potentially turning a fun league into a monster of stat keeping and research.

I agree. On a typical week the point scoring should be something like 70% from the offense and 30% from the defense, if you get me.

ATX_Skins wrote:DarthMonk should start another league where it's defensive players only

Seriously ...

I didn't like the idea of IDPs going into last year but ended up liking them.

Other people have said they should be as important as offensive players - not I.

I'm just supplying numbers for others to use when thinking about the issues.

I'm fine with no defense at all. I'm fine with no kicker. I'm fine with QBs that can score 100 points a week and RBs who can break the all-time record for yards in a game while scoring two TDs scoring half as many points for my fantasy team.

If we went with yahoo! default everywhere I'd be fine with that as well as probaably most of us would.

I'm not taking my name off. I have a title to defend.

Whateva.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:DarthMonk should start another league where it's defensive players only

Seriously ...

I didn't like the idea of IDPs going into last year but ended up liking them.

Other people have said they should be as important as offensive players - not I.

I'm just supplying numbers for others to use when thinking about the issues.

I'm fine with no defense at all. I'm fine with no kicker. I'm fine with QBs that can score 100 points a week and RBs who can break the all-time record for yards in a game while scoring two TDs scoring half as many points for my fantasy team.

If we went with yahoo! default everywhere I'd be fine with that as well as probaably most of us would.

I'm not taking my name off. I have a title to defend.

Whateva.

DarthMonk

It just seems as though you are pushing for an IDP importance that I don't feel anyone else wants. If other guys want the same thing then they can either speak up here or on Yahoo.

I don't mind IDP's either after last year but they are more like a little bonus to help you out and should in no way even come close to effecting the major outcome.

I can change the QB points back to 20 yards for 1 point, that's not a big deal really. (Had it at 20 last year)

I also feel IDPs shouldn't have as much points as offense and they do have potential to earn more based on sacks/ints/etc. Offense only get points based on what's in the settings.

ATX_Skins wrote:It just seems as though you are pushing for an IDP importance that I don't feel anyone else wants. If other guys want the same thing then they can either speak up here or on Yahoo.

Again, that is someone else, not I. So "same thing" does not apply and he did "speak up" ... here:

Deadskins wrote:I think we should have just as many IDPs as offensive players, and their fantasy scoring should be adjusted so that they score just like offensive players. That makes it more like real football, where offense and defense are equal partners in the team.

... and here:

Deadskins wrote:Another advantage to having IDPs score as much as offensive players is that it makes the draft much more interesting. In my league there are still good offensive players on the board in the late rounds, because defensive stars go off the board as early as the offensive ones.

I will continue to read other posts on the issues and supply what I consisder relevant commentary. Most of my actual suggestions (as opposed to comments on the suggestions of others) have been rebuffed which is fine. They are only suggestions.

DarthMonk