the_risen_demon

The author's argument seems to revolve around the idea that a flex spot is in addition to what would otherwise be the starting line up, not in place of a starting line up spot. Most leagues that use flex positions, though, use a format like 1 RB, 2 WR 1 RB/WR or 2 RB, 2 WR and 1RB/WR. The flex is simply taking the place of a RB (in the first example) or a WR (in the second). It doesn't have any effect on roster size and I'm not sure why the author thinks it does.

I think you're confusing occassional speculation with general consensus. Yes, he was angling for a pay raise earlier this off season. But he's public said that this is not a move to gain a new contract and that the decision to retire was motivated primarily by family interests. While I wouldn't rule out that this is some sort of ploy, it doesn't seem like Mason's style. He's always handled his business behind closed doors like a professional. Making a Farve-like retirement threat doesn't seem like his m.o. As for the filing of retirement paperwork, that's only necessary to claim pension and retirement benefits, and holding off on that step is not uncommon.

Someone not yet on the team, at any rate. Harrison? Burress? Marshall? Matt Jones?

Perhaps this explains their reported interest in Brandon Marshall.

Are you looking for guys that are being overhyped on the message boards, or guys that are being underhyped in more general media but more fully appreciated on boards?

Welcome to the board. I spent about three years in the shadows myself before my first post.

The post count on all previous posts updates as you continue posting. The three posts in this thread are the sum of his activity, so all three have a post count of 3.

If it's only a few players, why not just grab their stats from NFL.com and plug it into a spread sheet? If that's going to be too big a hassle, go to www.myfantasyleague.com. Create a league using your CBS league rules (don't worry, you can delete it without paying for it before the season starts). Once you have a league, go to the menu bar at the top and select Reports >> Player >> Top Performer/Player Stats. You can the adjust the year, weeks shown, positions shown, etc to show whatever you need.

As for the clutter, I'm sure that less would be better, but for the most part I find that ignoring them if I don't feel inclined to chime in works just fine. Ask me again after drafts get going and there are a dozen new "rate my team" posts and maybe I'll feel stronger. I come to this board often enough that it's a rare occassion when I feel compelled to start a post asking for advice. Hanging out here, listening and contributing to the discussions, and I feel that not only do I have enough knowledge to make the decision myself, but I also have a pretty good idea of the sentiment of the board before I even ask. As for the profanity/flames, I enjoy that the board isn't too soft. If I find an individual goes too far too often, I can (and do) put him on ignore. As (I'm guessing) one of the few gay members, I shrug off my posts that I might find offensive. Does it drive some posters away? Yeah, probably. Does it contribute to an environment that many poster enjoy? Would they leave if it were more heavily monitored? Maybe. That said, if Madd Futher Mucker were to leave the forum, I'd miss him and his insight much more than most of those who would tell him to get lost.

So true. While I was certainly happy having drafted Johnson, I was surprised how little involvement in the passing game he had, given that he was recruited to ECU as a wide out. He didn't look spectacular when they did throw him the ball, but if he can improve that aspect of his game he'll be a lot more valuable to the fantasy community.

I think CJ owners should hope White doesn't disappear. Johnson's game relies on his athleticism. He needs fresh legs to beat defends in second half of the game and the second half of the season. Johnson will be a lot more effective at 270 carries than at 320. As an owner, though, I'd be happy to see more of the red zone carries going to Johnson. That's where his real potential lies, not in getting an increase in carries.

Thanks, way to come through with the stats. Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. Am I more or less right in saying that you believe that Johnson is more likely to get carries in a close game, but less likely to do so when the game is either already won or lost? I can see a reasonable argument being made from that stance. I wonder, though, why you would choose to include "trailing close" with "trailing big" and "leading big". After all, I think we can presume that whatever logic lead the Titans coaching staff to put Johnson in the game while tied would also lead them to putting him in while trailing close at the same rate. Also, if you think that Tennessee has an easier schedule in the coming year and that that is likely to affect their splits, shouldn't we separate out "trailing big" and "leading big"? If so, we should be looking at the splits of "trailing big" vs. "trailing close" + "tied" + "leading close" vs. "leading big", no? If that's the case, we would be looking at: ---------------------------TB-------------------TC/T/LC---------------------LB LenDale------------6/16 (37.5%)------131/339 (38.6%)-------78/137 (56.9%) Johnson------------5/16 (31.3%)------203/339 (59.9%)-------54/137 (39.4%) Other Backs------5/16 (31.3%)---------5/339 (1.5%)----------5/137 (36.5%) So, if I follow you, your saying that because the Titans have an easier schedule in 2009, they are more likely to be leading big and, since White is relatively more likely to get carries in that situation, he is likely to carry a larger load in 2009? I can see your logic on that, though the Titans had a heck of a regular season last year, and I'm not sure that their time spent "leading big" is going to increase that much. Also, from what I've heard the Titans want to expand Johnson's role, so I'm not sure that last year's ratios will be applicable.

Our 12-team dynasty is divided into three four-team divisions. Each team plays each divisional opponent twice, and each non-divisional opponent once. Weeks 1-3 and weeks 12-14 are reserved for divisional play so that bye weeks do not interfere with divison matchups. It also gives you plenty of time to gloat if you start 3-0 or stew if you flouder out of the gate at 0-3. Top team (by record) in each division advances to the playoffs, along with one wildcard team (highest points who doesn't win a division). Playoffs are weeks 15-16. In the past, each division remained constant year-to-year, but we felt it was getting stale and we're trying something new this year. One division is made up of the four playoff teams from last year, and the other eight teams are randomly assigned within the other two divisions. It's going to be brutal on the champions' division, but winning that division title will come with serious bragging rights.

For you, it's a no-brainer. You get something for nothing, as you'd have dropped Colston either way. For him, I don't know that he'll go for it. He's going from having MJD, CJ3 and LT2 to CJ3, Colston and either LT2 or Gore. While it might make sense for him to make a move to diversify, it seems like he's devaluing his players by the move. He could likely do better trading one of the backs straight up for a better wide receiver. Two-for-ones like that are great if you only have two decent keepers, but since he has three talented players, I think it would be a mistake on his part.

Changes to scoring system don't have a huge effect on where to draft which position. It's actually a bit of a red herring in my mind. If a scoring change favors a particular position (as making all TD's 6 points does for quarterbacks), it brings the value of all the players of that position up. True, it raises the value of the top players a bit more than the second tier, but I feel like that owners overcompensate for that difference in their drafting in such leagues. If a QB value was there for the taking I would go for it, but I wouldn't reach for one too early. The second tier quarterbacks get 6 points per TD too. Starting rosters, however, can have a huge impact on how one should value players. Since your league only starts two wide outs, receivers ought to be significantly devalued. You simply don't need as much firepower at receiver as you do in a 3 WR league. For this reason, I'd take Fitzgerald (and any other receiver you may have been considering) off your list. For an illustration of this principle, ask anyone who plays in a two QB league how much of an advantage it is to have two (or more) good quarterbacks. Scarcity, more than scoring, drives player values. While the nature of the scoring in your league shouldn't have a huge impact on which position you draft, it should have a significant impact on how you rate players within their position. Yardage, relative to touchdowns, is half as valuable as in most leagues, and your rankings should reflect this. Overweight guys like LenDale White and Le'Ron McClain (insert fat joke here), and drop your rankings of guys who get yards but fewer TD's like Chris Johnson and Frank Gore. The same principle should be applied to wide receivers and quarterbacks. Who would I recommend? Running backs are going to be scarce (as always) since you must start two each week. If Forte or Turner were available I would be all over him at #8. DeAngelo Williams would probably be my next choice. If, at #17, there was still a feature back on the table like Clinton Portis or a guy who is likely to get a fair share of the workload and plenty of redzone work (Marion Barber?) I would take a long look at him. Otherwise, hopefully Brady or Manning will still be available, as I like either of them over Brees in your scoring system due to the likelihood of them putting up a ton of touchdown passes.