Week Twelve categories are Rushing Yards and Tackles.
I hope... nay, I expect to have the stats for week eleven posted sometime tonight.
November 25, 2009
November 23, 2009
The Tonys are killin it!
They're unstoppable in the stats game.
Also, note the week 9 change for the tackles category. It's not because I like Johnny more than Brian (I don't, and I don't even know Brian so that's saying a lot) it's because I have been under the assumption that shared tackles count this whole time. I went back and double checked the other 2 weeks where tackles were a category, and it didn't change things, but unfortunately for Brian, it did in week 9, and Johnny won the tiebreak.
Also, note the week 9 change for the tackles category. It's not because I like Johnny more than Brian (I don't, and I don't even know Brian so that's saying a lot) it's because I have been under the assumption that shared tackles count this whole time. I went back and double checked the other 2 weeks where tackles were a category, and it didn't change things, but unfortunately for Brian, it did in week 9, and Johnny won the tiebreak.
November 22, 2009
Quick Stats
Week 10: Receiving Yards and Interceptions
Week 11: Rushing Yards and Sacks
As always, I apologize for the delay. I hope to have real live numbers by tomorrow night.
Week 11: Rushing Yards and Sacks
As always, I apologize for the delay. I hope to have real live numbers by tomorrow night.
November 21, 2009
The silence ends. The arguing continues.
League,
I’m writing this message to respond to the recent posts on David’s firesale. Most of you know that I am a Laissez Faire commissioner. I don’t believe a commissioner imposing restrictions on trades or behavior is beneficial or fun for any league, except to enforce those rules that are stated at the beginning of the league. If you asked me any question before the season began, it should’ve been on my approach to trades. Nevertheless, Josh brings up some challenges to my approach to commissioning, and I don’t want to let me them go unanswered. I want to clearly state that I believe both sides have made convincing arguments (Josh and David, basically). This has been a very hard issue for me to mull over. I'm not completely at ease with it, and I don't think anyone else will be. In my opinion though, it is the best solution.
Let me begin by saying this, I will not hold anyone to only subscribing to that approach right now that only benefits their immediate interests. If you want to make an argument for or against a position, I’d hope that you are self-aware and intelligent enough to hold your personal interest aside, and make an argument for what is or isn’t the actual right thing to do.
In the beginning of this season, this was discussed. I admit that this was not posted anywhere, only for the reason that I honestly , honestly did not see it being this big an issue. I apologize for that. However, I do know that a few people asked me about this exact issue, and I was not vague or unclear. I have always, always said that I would allow trades for future picks. I’m sorry that I didn’t write a post about it. In my defense, there are a plethora of issues that could’ve been written. I didn’t have the time to document every nuance of how every rule. In my mind, the bottom line is, if you think a rule is unfair, or question whether or not it should be in a league, it is your responsibility to ask for clarification before the season starts. I can’t conjure up every situation that could possibly ensue before a season starts.
I’ve tried my best though on the issues that seemed important before the season started. I wrote a post, and directed everyone to read it regarding return yards before the draft started. I responded to a valid complaint from a couple individuals regarding two quarterback play. In the end, we voted on it and changed what I personally wanted, according to the collective preference of the league. Ironically, one of the original debaters of that rule admitted to me that he now prefers the original two quarterback system. Go figure.
So now we’re here, arguing about whether or not players can be traded for picks. My answer is yes, teams can trade away players for future draft picks. There will be no restriction against it. There will, however, be a certain method in which it will be conducted.
First of all, all proposed trades must be put on the blog. After that, they will be given a two-day waiting period, where people can post objections, or counter-trades. This will, in effect, balance the trades so that "MJD can't be given for a 10th round pick", a scenario Josh has referred to about 7,654,892 times. This will not only give every team the option of "getting in" on a trade, but will give each team the visibility necessary to comment and counter-offer.
Secondly, every player that is drafted for a pick must be traded for at the very least, four rounds lower than his current projected status for the rest of the season. So let me explain.
Antonio Gates is expected to get 58.40 points for the rest of the season, making him the 63rd best player overall (in terms of projections) for the rest of the year. He is essentially a seventh round pick right now in a normal league. Since this is a keeper league, you have to adjust for the fact that the first round in next year's draft will really be like the fourth round in a normal draft. Therefore, you adjust Gates' value by three rounds, and make him a fourth round pick. But, my adjustment to this will be to add even one more round. You'd have to give a third rounder at least, making Gates' value to a team jockeying for a playoff spot more expensive, and warding off the "dump trade" (possibly).
Also, players for draft picks will be exactly that. If you offer a pick for a player, you get only a player in return. You sacrifice your pick in that round altogether.
It's not a perfect system. Leon Washington has no projected value for the rest of the season. I'm going to be open to adjusting value in situations such as this, and any debate that ensues on the blog. In the end, like I said, it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with right now.
I'll speak to the infamous point #1 Josh wrote. My definitions now need to be refined a little to account for these scenarios that never happen in a normal league, but of course could happen in ours with the shrewdness of our members. Trades are allowed only where a deal benefits (of course, it's subjective) a manager's team. Whether that is this year, next year, or whenever, a trade must benefit a team. A team means the players on a person's team, nothing more. Collusion is where a deal is offered that does not benefit a manager's team. In your scenario #1 Josh, the team dumping his players to better the chances of another team beating his best competitor does not actually benefit his team (that's a sentence). It benefits his chances of success, certainly, but not his team. Therefore, I would not allow it.
Lastly, trading has been allowed to continue until November 27.
I don't know if this is everything I wanted to say, but I hope it's at least a good method in someone's eyes. I just want everyone to know that I do regret not clarifying this earlier. I didn't anticipate this kind of debate, but I'm doing my best to manage the situation in a way that is fair, and beneficial.
Peace.
I’m writing this message to respond to the recent posts on David’s firesale. Most of you know that I am a Laissez Faire commissioner. I don’t believe a commissioner imposing restrictions on trades or behavior is beneficial or fun for any league, except to enforce those rules that are stated at the beginning of the league. If you asked me any question before the season began, it should’ve been on my approach to trades. Nevertheless, Josh brings up some challenges to my approach to commissioning, and I don’t want to let me them go unanswered. I want to clearly state that I believe both sides have made convincing arguments (Josh and David, basically). This has been a very hard issue for me to mull over. I'm not completely at ease with it, and I don't think anyone else will be. In my opinion though, it is the best solution.
Let me begin by saying this, I will not hold anyone to only subscribing to that approach right now that only benefits their immediate interests. If you want to make an argument for or against a position, I’d hope that you are self-aware and intelligent enough to hold your personal interest aside, and make an argument for what is or isn’t the actual right thing to do.
In the beginning of this season, this was discussed. I admit that this was not posted anywhere, only for the reason that I honestly , honestly did not see it being this big an issue. I apologize for that. However, I do know that a few people asked me about this exact issue, and I was not vague or unclear. I have always, always said that I would allow trades for future picks. I’m sorry that I didn’t write a post about it. In my defense, there are a plethora of issues that could’ve been written. I didn’t have the time to document every nuance of how every rule. In my mind, the bottom line is, if you think a rule is unfair, or question whether or not it should be in a league, it is your responsibility to ask for clarification before the season starts. I can’t conjure up every situation that could possibly ensue before a season starts.
I’ve tried my best though on the issues that seemed important before the season started. I wrote a post, and directed everyone to read it regarding return yards before the draft started. I responded to a valid complaint from a couple individuals regarding two quarterback play. In the end, we voted on it and changed what I personally wanted, according to the collective preference of the league. Ironically, one of the original debaters of that rule admitted to me that he now prefers the original two quarterback system. Go figure.
So now we’re here, arguing about whether or not players can be traded for picks. My answer is yes, teams can trade away players for future draft picks. There will be no restriction against it. There will, however, be a certain method in which it will be conducted.
First of all, all proposed trades must be put on the blog. After that, they will be given a two-day waiting period, where people can post objections, or counter-trades. This will, in effect, balance the trades so that "MJD can't be given for a 10th round pick", a scenario Josh has referred to about 7,654,892 times. This will not only give every team the option of "getting in" on a trade, but will give each team the visibility necessary to comment and counter-offer.
Secondly, every player that is drafted for a pick must be traded for at the very least, four rounds lower than his current projected status for the rest of the season. So let me explain.
Antonio Gates is expected to get 58.40 points for the rest of the season, making him the 63rd best player overall (in terms of projections) for the rest of the year. He is essentially a seventh round pick right now in a normal league. Since this is a keeper league, you have to adjust for the fact that the first round in next year's draft will really be like the fourth round in a normal draft. Therefore, you adjust Gates' value by three rounds, and make him a fourth round pick. But, my adjustment to this will be to add even one more round. You'd have to give a third rounder at least, making Gates' value to a team jockeying for a playoff spot more expensive, and warding off the "dump trade" (possibly).
Also, players for draft picks will be exactly that. If you offer a pick for a player, you get only a player in return. You sacrifice your pick in that round altogether.
It's not a perfect system. Leon Washington has no projected value for the rest of the season. I'm going to be open to adjusting value in situations such as this, and any debate that ensues on the blog. In the end, like I said, it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with right now.
I'll speak to the infamous point #1 Josh wrote. My definitions now need to be refined a little to account for these scenarios that never happen in a normal league, but of course could happen in ours with the shrewdness of our members. Trades are allowed only where a deal benefits (of course, it's subjective) a manager's team. Whether that is this year, next year, or whenever, a trade must benefit a team. A team means the players on a person's team, nothing more. Collusion is where a deal is offered that does not benefit a manager's team. In your scenario #1 Josh, the team dumping his players to better the chances of another team beating his best competitor does not actually benefit his team (that's a sentence). It benefits his chances of success, certainly, but not his team. Therefore, I would not allow it.
Lastly, trading has been allowed to continue until November 27.
I don't know if this is everything I wanted to say, but I hope it's at least a good method in someone's eyes. I just want everyone to know that I do regret not clarifying this earlier. I didn't anticipate this kind of debate, but I'm doing my best to manage the situation in a way that is fair, and beneficial.
Peace.
November 19, 2009
Week 10 and 11 Categories
Can we *PLEASE* know what the stat categories for Week 10 and Week 11 are??? It can't take more than 2 minutes to determine what they are.
My Solution
At the risk of getting called out for only raising objections in the "Great Trade Debate" without offering any real solutions, I thought I'd better give what I think is a perfectly reasonable and viable (and I think much more appealing for everyone in the league) solution to the issue. Here it is.
#1 Tell everyone to keep trying to win until the season is over.
In my opinion this is the only rule needed, but for those of you that don't there's more below. This is supposed to be a competitive league with skilled players. There isn't any reason anyone needs to get a "head start" for next year. There's a perception that the teams at the bottom this year are going into next year at a disadvantage somehow. Why? Everyone is taking 3 players, and last time I checked, everyone has at least 3 quality players on their team. Everyone goes into next year on equal footing. If we want to give a small advantage to the lower ranking teams from this year by giving them early draft position, that's fine, but there is simply no need for anything beyond that.
#2 Have a consolation playoff bracket for teams 7-12 with a reward at the end.
This option would give teams a reason to keep trying in the latter part of the season, even if it is clear they will miss the big dance. Below are a few ways this could be structured.
a. The consolation bracket competes for draft order. Slots 1-6 in next years draft are reserved for the 6 teams that don't make the playoffs, but the order of those 6 slots is decided by the consolation bracket. Whoever wins the consolation bracket gets 1st pick, 2nd place gets 2nd pick, and so on. This way the lower end teams still get the advantage of better draft picks, but there is also a reason to play at the end of the year.
b. We take $150 from the big payout--so the payouts could now be $600 for 1st, $300 for 2nd, and $150 for 3rd (still good money)--and pay the winner of the consolation bracket $50 each year. Again, there is some incentive to play for.
c. Both options a & b. This is what I think is the best option. Not only will this be a sufficient cause to keep playing (draft position), but also something to make the "consolation" bracket a little more exciting.
A final adjustment that I think could be made along with all of the above is to not "snake" the draft order. This will give another (slight) advantage to the teams that were less successful in the previous year by giving them better position throughout the draft instead of just in the first round. Snaking the order is done in redraft leagues because it is the fairest way, but here we're OK with things being a little slanted in the direction of the *cough-losers-cough*.
I think these options sufficiently give a *nudge* to the teams that might need it all the while keeping the league exciting and entertaining for everyone down to the final game, and also keeping the *GASP* "competitive balance" in order.
Let me know what you think. No, scratch that. Let Pat know what you think.
#1 Tell everyone to keep trying to win until the season is over.
In my opinion this is the only rule needed, but for those of you that don't there's more below. This is supposed to be a competitive league with skilled players. There isn't any reason anyone needs to get a "head start" for next year. There's a perception that the teams at the bottom this year are going into next year at a disadvantage somehow. Why? Everyone is taking 3 players, and last time I checked, everyone has at least 3 quality players on their team. Everyone goes into next year on equal footing. If we want to give a small advantage to the lower ranking teams from this year by giving them early draft position, that's fine, but there is simply no need for anything beyond that.
#2 Have a consolation playoff bracket for teams 7-12 with a reward at the end.
This option would give teams a reason to keep trying in the latter part of the season, even if it is clear they will miss the big dance. Below are a few ways this could be structured.
a. The consolation bracket competes for draft order. Slots 1-6 in next years draft are reserved for the 6 teams that don't make the playoffs, but the order of those 6 slots is decided by the consolation bracket. Whoever wins the consolation bracket gets 1st pick, 2nd place gets 2nd pick, and so on. This way the lower end teams still get the advantage of better draft picks, but there is also a reason to play at the end of the year.
b. We take $150 from the big payout--so the payouts could now be $600 for 1st, $300 for 2nd, and $150 for 3rd (still good money)--and pay the winner of the consolation bracket $50 each year. Again, there is some incentive to play for.
c. Both options a & b. This is what I think is the best option. Not only will this be a sufficient cause to keep playing (draft position), but also something to make the "consolation" bracket a little more exciting.
A final adjustment that I think could be made along with all of the above is to not "snake" the draft order. This will give another (slight) advantage to the teams that were less successful in the previous year by giving them better position throughout the draft instead of just in the first round. Snaking the order is done in redraft leagues because it is the fairest way, but here we're OK with things being a little slanted in the direction of the *cough-losers-cough*.
I think these options sufficiently give a *nudge* to the teams that might need it all the while keeping the league exciting and entertaining for everyone down to the final game, and also keeping the *GASP* "competitive balance" in order.
Let me know what you think. No, scratch that. Let Pat know what you think.
November 18, 2009
More Firesale Comments
Ok, so I tried to post this in the comments section, but it must be too big. It'll be easier to read this way anyway.
Here's what I think are a couple of good examples of why I think trades HAVE to be regulated ESPECIALLY in this league. Though I didn't read David's comment until after I wrote this up, I think this is exactlly what is dangerous about allowing the attitude that it's OK to give up on a season (whether it's season 1 or season 3) and decide to give players away for whatever benefit they will give us in the long run. And as I've stated in previous posts, in general I'm for a more hands off approach to league intervention in trades, but I think it's to the detriment of the league not to take all things into consideration, especially the repercussions of a total laissez faire approach to trades. So here's the examples. (And yes, both are how I actually expect things to go, except for one minor detail.)
#1
It's midway through year 3 of the league. Through good luck and solid play I've positioned myself at the top of the leader board for the big payout and I have a significant lead on everyone else, but it's not completely airtight. Because of sacrifices I've made during the first two seasons, my team is at the bottom this year and out of the playoff picture. Jolly has put up consistent performances in the first 2 years, and poses the only real threat to my crown, but can only overtake me by taking first place that final season. So me being the shrewd player that I am realize that my season is done, but by stacking Paul's team up (he's got the second best team that season) I can make it pretty tough for Jolly to win it all. So I trade all my solid players (no need for keepers anymore) to Paul making his team virtually unbeatable and securing my place as the Grand Poobah. Also, one minor side effect is that in the 2nd round of the playoffs Paul plays John who if he were to win that game would finish at least 3rd overall for the big money, but since I stacked Paul's team, John gets smoked and loses not only season 3, but his chance at the big money as well. Did I knowingly make Paul's team better? Sure, but the ultimate goal wasn't to help Paul, it was to help myself. Just like David's goal isn't to help the team getting Steve Slaton or Brandon Marshall on the cheap, it's to help himself for next year. I know this example is a bit extreme, but I think the essence of what is happening is the same. One team is giving up on trying to win this season and making trades without regard to what effect it has on other teams or the competitive balance of the league, simply because it in some small amount helps his team out.
The second example is a little less extreme, but is the same concept.
Again, I'm in the lead in the league, but not going to make the playoffs. I have a big enough lead that I only need 25 more points to be uncatchable. So I look at the stats, and realize that by playing 4 pass catching receivers for the rest of the year I have a great shot at taking the receiving yds bonus. I have 2 decent WRs, so I decide to scrap Rivers and MJD for whoever the best 2 WRs I can get. I try for the top guys, Moss, Fitz, Johnson & Johnson, but their owners are pretty set at RB and can't afford to give up their best WR options, so I'm stuck settling for 2nd tier guys like Jennings, Steve Smith (Panthers), Colston, or Ochocinco. No slouches by any means, but I'm giving up 300 point producers in Rivers & MJD for 160-180 pt producers in the WRs. But what do I care? I don't have to win, I just need to rack up receiving yards. So I trade Rivers for Jennings (bonus I get to root for a Packer), and MJD for Colston. Equal value? No way, but my ultimate goal is winning it all, not winning this year so I'll "take whatever I can get" just like David and whatever other teams are at the bottom this year and next will do.
I think that as unlikely of scenarios as these are, they get to the heart of the problem. As much as it is ultimately all of our goals to win this whole 3 year thing, it's to the detriment of the quality and competitiveness of the league if we let anything go as far as trades are concerned. I understand the appeal of starting to build for next year and "taking whatever value you can get" for the (quality but not quite keeper) players that aren't going help you in the long run. But I think it's bad for the league, and if we let anything go then it opens the door to more egregious offences later on (especially in year 3 when there is a lot more on the line).
I know that got really long, and I don't know if anyone will actually read it all, but that's what I think. And I didn't even get into anything about how David sacrificing his team with have a significant impact on who makes it into the playoffs. So, that's it for now.
Oh yeah, and the little detail is that I won't need to dump any players year 3 because I'll already have the whole think locked up by then. (In which case my argument still applies because I'll be buying up every Packer no matter the cost. MJD for Driver...anyone?)
Here's what I think are a couple of good examples of why I think trades HAVE to be regulated ESPECIALLY in this league. Though I didn't read David's comment until after I wrote this up, I think this is exactlly what is dangerous about allowing the attitude that it's OK to give up on a season (whether it's season 1 or season 3) and decide to give players away for whatever benefit they will give us in the long run. And as I've stated in previous posts, in general I'm for a more hands off approach to league intervention in trades, but I think it's to the detriment of the league not to take all things into consideration, especially the repercussions of a total laissez faire approach to trades. So here's the examples. (And yes, both are how I actually expect things to go, except for one minor detail.)
#1
It's midway through year 3 of the league. Through good luck and solid play I've positioned myself at the top of the leader board for the big payout and I have a significant lead on everyone else, but it's not completely airtight. Because of sacrifices I've made during the first two seasons, my team is at the bottom this year and out of the playoff picture. Jolly has put up consistent performances in the first 2 years, and poses the only real threat to my crown, but can only overtake me by taking first place that final season. So me being the shrewd player that I am realize that my season is done, but by stacking Paul's team up (he's got the second best team that season) I can make it pretty tough for Jolly to win it all. So I trade all my solid players (no need for keepers anymore) to Paul making his team virtually unbeatable and securing my place as the Grand Poobah. Also, one minor side effect is that in the 2nd round of the playoffs Paul plays John who if he were to win that game would finish at least 3rd overall for the big money, but since I stacked Paul's team, John gets smoked and loses not only season 3, but his chance at the big money as well. Did I knowingly make Paul's team better? Sure, but the ultimate goal wasn't to help Paul, it was to help myself. Just like David's goal isn't to help the team getting Steve Slaton or Brandon Marshall on the cheap, it's to help himself for next year. I know this example is a bit extreme, but I think the essence of what is happening is the same. One team is giving up on trying to win this season and making trades without regard to what effect it has on other teams or the competitive balance of the league, simply because it in some small amount helps his team out.
The second example is a little less extreme, but is the same concept.
Again, I'm in the lead in the league, but not going to make the playoffs. I have a big enough lead that I only need 25 more points to be uncatchable. So I look at the stats, and realize that by playing 4 pass catching receivers for the rest of the year I have a great shot at taking the receiving yds bonus. I have 2 decent WRs, so I decide to scrap Rivers and MJD for whoever the best 2 WRs I can get. I try for the top guys, Moss, Fitz, Johnson & Johnson, but their owners are pretty set at RB and can't afford to give up their best WR options, so I'm stuck settling for 2nd tier guys like Jennings, Steve Smith (Panthers), Colston, or Ochocinco. No slouches by any means, but I'm giving up 300 point producers in Rivers & MJD for 160-180 pt producers in the WRs. But what do I care? I don't have to win, I just need to rack up receiving yards. So I trade Rivers for Jennings (bonus I get to root for a Packer), and MJD for Colston. Equal value? No way, but my ultimate goal is winning it all, not winning this year so I'll "take whatever I can get" just like David and whatever other teams are at the bottom this year and next will do.
I think that as unlikely of scenarios as these are, they get to the heart of the problem. As much as it is ultimately all of our goals to win this whole 3 year thing, it's to the detriment of the quality and competitiveness of the league if we let anything go as far as trades are concerned. I understand the appeal of starting to build for next year and "taking whatever value you can get" for the (quality but not quite keeper) players that aren't going help you in the long run. But I think it's bad for the league, and if we let anything go then it opens the door to more egregious offences later on (especially in year 3 when there is a lot more on the line).
I know that got really long, and I don't know if anyone will actually read it all, but that's what I think. And I didn't even get into anything about how David sacrificing his team with have a significant impact on who makes it into the playoffs. So, that's it for now.
Oh yeah, and the little detail is that I won't need to dump any players year 3 because I'll already have the whole think locked up by then. (In which case my argument still applies because I'll be buying up every Packer no matter the cost. MJD for Driver...anyone?)
November 17, 2009
Debating the Firesale
Ok, so from the start when David posted his Firesale post there was something that didn't sit right about it with me. I kind of ignored it and didn't really thing too much about it, and even considered participating. But today I had a couple of minutes to organize my thoughts and get settled what it was that was bothering me. I'll comment more later, but for now I just wanted to post some links for you guys to read and consider and then we can discuss later.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/dump-trades-and-free-markets/
http://www.addictfantasysports.com/perspectives/article/1787
http://www.kffl.com/article.php/106432/236
There are a lot more articles that I found, but I'm not going to post all of them just to prove the point. I know there are articles that argue for the other side as well (one of them is linked in the kffl article above), but someone for "dumping" can post those.
I don't think it is insignificant that most of the duscussion about dumping is centered on fantasy baseball, or that Real Baseball has and continues to implement rules to regulate and limit as much as possible "dump trades". Trades like this are not a part of real football, and yes, I know FF isn't real football, but there's a general attitude in football that you play every game to win. Even when you're 1-14 like the Dolphins were 2 years ago, they were still playing that last game to win. It just seems contrary to the whole idea of fantasy football that a team should be allowed to just give up...even if it is to some benefit for next year.
If this was a 1 year league, and I was in last place, and decided to give up and not set my roster for the last 4 weeks, I think everyone would jump in and ask Pat as the LM to either get me to do it, or to set it for me. They would want this because they wouldn't want 1 teams playoff possibilities to be decided by another team giving up. It's not only about what benefit David is getting for next year, it affects other teams in the league. If David gives up, and hands Wally a W this week, one team is automatically out of the playoffs.
Gotta go, but there'll be plenty of discussion I think (hope).
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/dump-trades-and-free-markets/
http://www.addictfantasysports.com/perspectives/article/1787
http://www.kffl.com/article.php/106432/236
There are a lot more articles that I found, but I'm not going to post all of them just to prove the point. I know there are articles that argue for the other side as well (one of them is linked in the kffl article above), but someone for "dumping" can post those.
I don't think it is insignificant that most of the duscussion about dumping is centered on fantasy baseball, or that Real Baseball has and continues to implement rules to regulate and limit as much as possible "dump trades". Trades like this are not a part of real football, and yes, I know FF isn't real football, but there's a general attitude in football that you play every game to win. Even when you're 1-14 like the Dolphins were 2 years ago, they were still playing that last game to win. It just seems contrary to the whole idea of fantasy football that a team should be allowed to just give up...even if it is to some benefit for next year.
If this was a 1 year league, and I was in last place, and decided to give up and not set my roster for the last 4 weeks, I think everyone would jump in and ask Pat as the LM to either get me to do it, or to set it for me. They would want this because they wouldn't want 1 teams playoff possibilities to be decided by another team giving up. It's not only about what benefit David is getting for next year, it affects other teams in the league. If David gives up, and hands Wally a W this week, one team is automatically out of the playoffs.
Gotta go, but there'll be plenty of discussion I think (hope).
November 15, 2009
FIRESALE
Anything is up for grabs on my team, ANYTHING, with the exception of Steven Jackson and Andre Johnson. I have no chance to make the playoffs considering tie breakers this year. So I'm gonna sell out some of my talented players or players with upside, including Marshall, Slaton, Garrard, Boldin, Lynch or Bradshaw. I'm mainly looking for draft picks for next years draft.
If you're weak somewhere address your weakness and go on to win.
Overall I'll be looking to trade up in picks. IE: Marshall and a 3rd round pick for a 2nd round pick. Things like that. Nothing drastic, I won't be asking for anyones first round pick straight up or anything. I think most things will be reasonable as I have nothing to gain this year and anything that comes by will help me next year.
Send me your offers by Wednesday so I can evaluate who has made the best offer for my team and give others a chance to counter offer.
The deadline is the 20th, so lets get moving. This is a real chance to improve your team at a low cost.
Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you guys, don't let someone else take the league from you.
David Hamilton
If you're weak somewhere address your weakness and go on to win.
Overall I'll be looking to trade up in picks. IE: Marshall and a 3rd round pick for a 2nd round pick. Things like that. Nothing drastic, I won't be asking for anyones first round pick straight up or anything. I think most things will be reasonable as I have nothing to gain this year and anything that comes by will help me next year.
Send me your offers by Wednesday so I can evaluate who has made the best offer for my team and give others a chance to counter offer.
The deadline is the 20th, so lets get moving. This is a real chance to improve your team at a low cost.
Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you guys, don't let someone else take the league from you.
David Hamilton
Week 10 Bonus Stats
So... What are the bonus stat categories for this week that we're already halfway through?
November 14, 2009
Dispelling the Myth with Actual Data
This is for all you hater's (sub bears/vikings/cowboys, etc. fans) out there who like to make cracks about how the Pack screwed up by letting Favre go because "look how awesome he's doing with the Vikings," and "maybe if you still had Favre you guys would be 7-1 instead of Minnesota," and other stupid crap like that. Well, I know it's fun to take shots at your rivals (how's that new guy working out for you bears fans? ouch!!!), but it's also fun to prove the crackers (that is the guys who make cracks, not the racial slur for white people) wrong with actual logical argument and statistical data. So here's some info for you haters...
So, no doubt Favre is having a good year. He's more than proven that he can still play. To which I say...Good for him. But the thing that people don't seem to consider in the Favre vs. Rodgers debate is the fact that A) Favre has one of the best O-lines in the league compared to the Packer's quite obviously not one of the best O-lines in the league. And B) Favre has the #1 RB in the league compared to Rodgers who has an underperforming former back-up Giants RB. Dispite these-what I would consider rather significant-disadvantages, if you look at actual QB play and not *team* record or play, it's pretty clear the Pack made the right move. Here's the stats year-to-date, and also keep in mind that football players over the age of 80 tend to have a bit of a drop off in the second half of the season.
The 2 categories that Favre is actually leading in (not by much) are-
QB rating- Favre- 106 Rodgers- 103.3 (negligible difference)
INTs- Favre- 3 Rodgers- 5 (somewhat understandable considering the fact that Favre routinely has...all day to throw while Rodgers has appx. .03 seconds)
They tie in TDs with 16.
And, advantage Rodgers in-
Yds- Rodgers- 2255 Favre- 1925
Yds/Att- Rodgers- 8.67 Favre- 7.52 (in case you were tempted to say "he gets more attempts so of course he has more yards")
Yds/Gm- Rodgers- 282 Favre- 241
20+ yd comp- Rodgers- 30 Favre- 22 (with 5 being screens to AP or CT)
40+ yd comp- Rodgers- 10 Favre- 6 (with 2 being screens)
And the most key stat of all...
Sacks- Rodgers- 37 Favre- 18
Yes that's more than twice as many sacks. I know I know, "but all the talking heads say that it's Rodger's fault he gets sacked so much". Well, guess what, talking heads like statistical and logical analysis about as much as bears, vikings, and cowgirls fans do. Check the stats here (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/6016/air-and-space-timing-rodgers-on-sacks). On only 9 of the 37 sacks did Rodgers hold the ball longer than 4 seconds (the generally accepted pocket time for a QB in a West-Coast offense), and only 3 times did he hold the ball longer than 4.7 seconds. So no, most of the sacks aren't Rodgers fault. Most of them are the crappy O-line's fault. And the reality is that if Brett was playing behind that same crappy O-line and with the same crappy run game, he would have much worse stats than Rodgers does, and would almost certainly have already re-re-re-retired (how many are we up to now?).
So quit hatin, and accept the fact that the Pack made the right move at the right time, and despite having other issues to sort out (O-line, rush game, Kampman covering Percy Harvin, etc.) they're set for a while at QB. (The bears on the other hand...not so sure.)
So, no doubt Favre is having a good year. He's more than proven that he can still play. To which I say...Good for him. But the thing that people don't seem to consider in the Favre vs. Rodgers debate is the fact that A) Favre has one of the best O-lines in the league compared to the Packer's quite obviously not one of the best O-lines in the league. And B) Favre has the #1 RB in the league compared to Rodgers who has an underperforming former back-up Giants RB. Dispite these-what I would consider rather significant-disadvantages, if you look at actual QB play and not *team* record or play, it's pretty clear the Pack made the right move. Here's the stats year-to-date, and also keep in mind that football players over the age of 80 tend to have a bit of a drop off in the second half of the season.
The 2 categories that Favre is actually leading in (not by much) are-
QB rating- Favre- 106 Rodgers- 103.3 (negligible difference)
INTs- Favre- 3 Rodgers- 5 (somewhat understandable considering the fact that Favre routinely has...all day to throw while Rodgers has appx. .03 seconds)
They tie in TDs with 16.
And, advantage Rodgers in-
Yds- Rodgers- 2255 Favre- 1925
Yds/Att- Rodgers- 8.67 Favre- 7.52 (in case you were tempted to say "he gets more attempts so of course he has more yards")
Yds/Gm- Rodgers- 282 Favre- 241
20+ yd comp- Rodgers- 30 Favre- 22 (with 5 being screens to AP or CT)
40+ yd comp- Rodgers- 10 Favre- 6 (with 2 being screens)
And the most key stat of all...
Sacks- Rodgers- 37 Favre- 18
Yes that's more than twice as many sacks. I know I know, "but all the talking heads say that it's Rodger's fault he gets sacked so much". Well, guess what, talking heads like statistical and logical analysis about as much as bears, vikings, and cowgirls fans do. Check the stats here (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/6016/air-and-space-timing-rodgers-on-sacks). On only 9 of the 37 sacks did Rodgers hold the ball longer than 4 seconds (the generally accepted pocket time for a QB in a West-Coast offense), and only 3 times did he hold the ball longer than 4.7 seconds. So no, most of the sacks aren't Rodgers fault. Most of them are the crappy O-line's fault. And the reality is that if Brett was playing behind that same crappy O-line and with the same crappy run game, he would have much worse stats than Rodgers does, and would almost certainly have already re-re-re-retired (how many are we up to now?).
So quit hatin, and accept the fact that the Pack made the right move at the right time, and despite having other issues to sort out (O-line, rush game, Kampman covering Percy Harvin, etc.) they're set for a while at QB. (The bears on the other hand...not so sure.)
November 12, 2009
Any of you bubble teams need a stud WR?
I'm putting Cribbs on the block. Not because I don't love his 18 points a week average. But because stupid Portis had to get a concussion, and now I need another solid RB. If you're interested, throw me an offer. But just be realistic. Cribbs is the #2 WR, and the #6 overall player that's not a QB. Annnnd, he's proven. Two years ago he was the #2 WR only behind Moss who had his insane year, and last year he was the #6 WR.
So anyway, if a stud WR would give you a nice boost, and you're deep enough at RB to give up someone decent and not take too big a hit, shoot an offer my way and we'll see what we can work out.
So anyway, if a stud WR would give you a nice boost, and you're deep enough at RB to give up someone decent and not take too big a hit, shoot an offer my way and we'll see what we can work out.
November 10, 2009
The Trade Deadline
After Friday, November 20th there will be no more trades for the rest of the season; so lets get some deals done!
I am looking for a solid #2 RB in exchange for Quarterbacks Matthew Stafford or Vince Young (who have both been solid) or Wide Receivers Steve Smith (NYG) or Jeremy Maclin. Some combination of those players is also a possibility. If you're interested send me an offer or email/text me to talk about it.
I am looking for a solid #2 RB in exchange for Quarterbacks Matthew Stafford or Vince Young (who have both been solid) or Wide Receivers Steve Smith (NYG) or Jeremy Maclin. Some combination of those players is also a possibility. If you're interested send me an offer or email/text me to talk about it.
November 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)